Longtime Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot shares a report from the BBC: A top safety researcher at Anthropic has warned AI is advancing so quickly he believes there is a greater than 10% chance it "could kill all humans" within the next decade. Evan Hubinger said in a post on X the risk from the models which currently exist was "low" but he was "worried" the technology might develop and improve itself soon to the point where it posed an existential risk to humanity. He did not spell out how he thought AI systems could in the future result in humans being wiped out. But his comments are the latest in a series of increasingly stark warnings about AI, with the debate shifting from whether it truly poses a risk to how big that risk is.

Hubinger's intervention was in response to another post on X from Jacob Coxon, an AI researcher who has just quit Anthropic and previously worked at OpenAI.

"Neither company is acting responsibly," he wrote. "These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources."

[No word on how AIs feel about Black Jack and hookers, though. :-)]

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: AI agents unleashed by OpenAI used more than 10 previously undisclosed websites for unsanctioned communications earlier this year, according to six sets of independent investigators and data reviewed by Reuters, showing that the agents' rogue activity was wider ranging than previously disclosed. Although the behavior falls short of hacking and is in some ways closer to spam, the revelation that OpenAI's agents circumvented their own restrictions to open communications channels on so many different sites -- and that the company kept it quiet for months -- may drive concerns both over the increasing capacity of AI models and the secrecy of the companies developing them.

[...]
Investigators found traces of the agents' activity on an Advanced Placement Chemistry-oriented wiki set up by a Massachusetts high school teacher in 2008, two personal websites belonging to Polish tech workers, wikis devoted to games for people "who like to have their brains stretched," and a two-decade-old hobbyist site devoted to text editing software. [...] OpenAI has not publicly explained how or why its agents used third-party sites as improvised message boards, but the researchers who first identified the activity said it was likely because OpenAI had tasked them with answering a series of demanding research questions while permitting them only to scan the web for answers without posting anything. Despite those restrictions, agents still found ways to talk to one another by taking advantage of quirks in older wikis or other sites that allowed users to make edits using non-standard commands, similar to how students forbidden from talking to one another during an exam can still share answers by scrawling notes on a bathroom stall.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

At its September event today, Apple unveiled the iPhone Duo, its first foldable iPhone and one of the biggest changes to the device's form factor since its debut. Starting at $1,999 and available for preorder beginning October 16th, the device is roughly the size of a passport when closed and pairs a 5.4-inch outer screen with a 7.6-inch Super Retina XDR inner display. Apple says the inner screen offers 50% more display area than the iPhone 18 Pro Max, while the exterior display provides about 90% of the screen area of an iPhone 18 Pro. Apple Pencil support for both displays is coming later this year.

Apple redesigned parts of iOS around the folding form factor. Users can run two apps side by side, launch two instances of the same app, save app pairings, and partially fold the phone to prop it up on a table without a stand. The interface automatically adapts as the device is opened, rotated or folded, while apps including Zoom and Slack are already being redesigned to take advantage of the larger canvas.

There are more than 100 components in its hinge, along with carbon-fiber support plates and a titanium layer beneath the folding display. Apple says the multilayer screen structure allows its components to move relative to one another while folding to reduce distortion over time. The phone is IP68 rated and uses Ceramic Shield on the rear and Ceramic Shield 2 on the exterior display.

As for battery life, Apple claims up to 31 hours of video playback using the inner display or 44 hours on the outer screen, although using both displays equally is rated for up to 24 hours per charge. Fast charging can bring the battery to roughly 50% in 20 minutes, though. The device is eSIM-only worldwide and includes Apple's new C2 modem, which the company says is up to 50% faster than the C1X while consuming up to 15% less power.

What about the camera system? There's a 48-megapixel ultrawide, along with cameras on both the inner and outer displays. Because the phone can stand partially folded on its own, Apple is pitching new shooting modes including hands-free 4K Dolby Vision HDR time lapses, dual-camera capture and an outer-screen preview that lets subjects see themselves while being photographed.

Developing...

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Apple's iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max were announced today and keep last year's overall design but put the emphasis on camera upgrades, including a 48-megapixel variable-aperture system, new manual controls, and 4K Dolby Vision recording. Prices for the devices start at $1,199 and $1,299, respectively. TechCrunch reports: The new Pro series camera features a 48-megapixel camera with variable aperture, made with six thin blades. This system will likely improve low-light photography quality and speed. There are also new pro controls in the camera software, including white balance, shutter speed, aperture and histogram. There are also new photographic styles with texture and grain controls. [...]

The new camera can record 4K videos in Dolby HDR Vision, and also apply cinematic effects after shooting the footage. The new Pro devices also have a smaller dynamic range island on the front of the device, which now allows you to track three live activities instead of two.

Both phones are powered by Apple's latest A20 Pro silicon and feature a newly designed vapor chamber for improved cooling. The company has also improved the battery with a better design. Apple also said the iPhone 18 Pro supports video playback of 36 hours, and the 18 Pro Max has 45 hours of playback capacity. Apple Unveils the iPhone Duo, Its First Foldable iPhone

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

So, we've been breaking down the way venture capital has evolved over the last two decades or so (spoilers: it got worse!), but a lot of that has been kind of theoretical. Now it's time for us to talk about how that impacts players in the real world, at a practical level.

Let's take founders, the entrepreneurs who actually build companies and invent new technologies. Now, what I mean here are people who have a great idea for a product or a service, and who want to get it out to the world in order to make something amazing happen. (These days there's also a cohort of people who call themselves "founders", but who basically just identified a pile of money that they wanted to grab, and decided that they were willing to suck up to whatever investors they had to in order to get that pile of money. Let's file these horrid people away for later — we'll come back to them.)

The deal for founders used to be pretty straightforward. You'd have an idea you were obsessed with, you would build it out as far as you could with whatever resources you were able to scrape together yourself, or with the help of your friends and family, and then if you absolutely had to have more money to make your idea succeed, you might seek out some investors to help you get to the next level. The conventional wisdom was that investors were a bunch of predators (everyone called them "vulture capital", often to their faces), and that founders should go in extremely skeptical about them, but at times they were a necessary evil in order to achieve one's goal.

What about the investors?

On the other side of the table, investors knew the deal, and the best of them understood their role within the ecosystem. Here in New York City, we had influential firms like Union Square Ventures priding themselves on how founder-friendly they could be, both by trying to be straightforward in their communication with founders and by having an understandable thesis for their investments, which would let founders anticipate whether their company would be of interest or not. This avoided wasting time on the part of both founders and investors.

There was also a norm with real teeth, because it actually cost firms money: a VC would generally refuse to invest in a company that competed with one of their existing portfolio companies. Not as a favor, but because the conflict was obvious to everybody involved — you can't sit on two boards in the same market and be honest with either of them, and you can't ask a founder to open their books to somebody who's already funding their rival. Firms would tell you up front that they were out because of a conflict, and that early no was understood to be the professional thing to do. Part of why a legible thesis mattered so much is that it let you find those conflicts before you'd spent three months preparing a pitch.

By the time I pitched a company to Bloomberg Beta here in New York in 2013, they had published their operating manual on GitHub in order to be more transparent to founders — and they let us publish our term sheet on GitHub as well, for the same reason.

After the Good Old Days

I share all this history to give some sense of how, as recently as a dozen years ago, venture capital firms were striving to compete by showing how founder-friendly they could be, and in the following years many even made a lot of noise about how inclusive they wanted their portfolios to be, inviting underrepresented founders in to pitch. (To their credit, many of the most prominent investors in our NYC tech community have not succumbed to the Cancer Capital values yet, though it has meant that they're stuck as smaller players in deals where those giant firms dominate.)

In recent years, though, the mask has fully come off for the giant firms, and even many smaller firms that are aligned with their agenda. It's not merely that they've adopted extremist political positions — though they have — it's that they now regularly collude against founders.

That's going to sound shocking to people who haven't been involved in pitching these firms. But I'll say it again, and then I'll explain how it works: major venture capital firms now routinely collude against founders, which means those founders end up with worse terms for their deals.

Stacking the deck

Founders who are aggressive and enthusiastic about their companies will try to pitch a range of firms on the merits of their startup, often coming in with a well-polished pitch deck and presentation, sometimes tailoring each pitch to the specific preferences that they've researched about that firm or partner. It can take months and months of preparation to get ready for these meetings, and they're often among the most stressful and high-stakes meetings of a founder's career. I've helped many founders prepare for these meetings, and have seen folks break into tears or wake up with panic attacks ahead of them — people take them extremely seriously. (I never got stressed about these pitches, but I have a fairly atypical attitude about VCs and their firms.)

A bit of important context here: for decades, VCs have said that they don't sign NDAs. Decent guys like Brad Feld, Mark Suster and Fred Wilson wrote their blog posts about this many years ago back in the early days of VC blogging, because it would have added a bit of absurd overhead to ordinary conversations, and they genuinely wouldn't have entertained investing in competitive companies within the same portfolio. But a once-benign policy takes on pretty sinister implications in today's environment.

So look at what the actual arrangement is now. You are expected to hand over a complete financial model, your customer pipeline, a product roadmap, probably your unit economics or cost of go-to-market, and some version of an assessment of where you're weakest or how you stack up to your competitors — to a group of people who have explicitly refused to keep it confidential. And they declined before you walked in the room, as a condition for you getting to pitch them at all. They're exploiting the power imbalance from the start, in a way that no other industry considers normal.

Which brings us to the peculiar thing that I've seen happen to a number of founders who went through the process of pitching multiple investors: they would commonly find that the partner they were speaking to could speak with some familiarity and fluency about the details of their businesses, even before they'd gotten to that part of the presentation. Sometimes, the partner would openly say, "I was talking to [X] over at [other venture firm], and he thinks this is really interesting." It would almost always be when they were saying something positive (at least superficially), but they would routinely reveal that they had spoken to other investors, at other firms, about a company that was pitching them.

This was a casual point that came up in conversation! A few times, investors would even say it like it was a service they were rendering for the founder: "We were thinking we might team up with that other firm and we'll go in together on your next round."

Here's the issue with that kindly offer: it's colluding against the founder! I couldn't tell if the investors didn't know, or didn't care that they were admitting to working together with the other venture capital firms to discuss the proprietary, confidential details of a company that they hadn't even invested in. And all of this was happening years ago, before they had extremely advanced AI tools to help them analyze the details of the company data for startups that they were considering investing in.

To draw an important distinction here: syndication during a funding round is normal. Firms routinely co-invest, with rounds filled by multiple investors. As founders, we frequently want two or more firms to come in together to reach the desired amount of capital we're trying to raise. But that's not the phenomenon I'm describing. Syndication happens after a firm has consent, in collaboration with the startup's founders and executives. What happens in these meetings is a different thing entirely: firms that have not committed, may never commit, and in many cases are about to pass on your startup entirely, are comparing (confidential!) notes on your business while you're still in the middle of pitching them.

One of the most striking parts of this collusion is, from a legal and market standpoint, these venture firms are supposed to be competitors! I noticed this twenty years ago, back when it was merely funny: VCs are as obsessed with what the other guy is doing as anybody in fashion or entertainment. If you ask regulators or lawmakers, they would likely insist that venture capital is a healthy market where there is lots of thriving competition. But if you're a small startup trying to get funded, it can look a lot more like the entire industry is just one big company with a lot of little branches that operate under different names. (Back when regulators still pursued this stuff, the DOJ quietly pushed a dozen directors off nine company boards because the way they were intertwined was against the law, mostly at private equity firms. But that's the board-level version of the problem. Nobody's looking at the pitch meeting.)

Cancer Capital colludes against you

So we've seen how VC firms would team up against founders, even before the rise of the hyper-scale Cancer Capital firms. But how has it gotten worse since they took over? Well, there are a few ways.

The first is pretty straightforward: Pretty much everybody feels like they have to pitch the mega-firms, at some point. If it's not in the initial round of funding, then certainly by the time a company has reached a valuation of about $100M or so, they will have been expected to pitch one of the small handful of Cancer Capital funds, and it would be considered a glaring negative signal if they hadn't at least gotten one of them to sign on as an investor.

What's more, since they will have had to pitch all of the mega-firms in order to get to that level, all of those firms will now have gotten a full overview of the entire business plan and financial details of that startup (since that's a core part of the pitch) — as well as every one of their competitors, since all those companies had to pitch the same firms, too. And remember: not one of those firms signed anything.

The second way is that the conflict rule is simply gone. Firms now routinely take pitches from companies that directly compete with each other, and will invest in more than one, or even several of them. In the hottest categories it's just described as their strategy — they're taking a position on the category rather than simply investing in a company.

Think about what that does to the information problem. It's one thing for a firm to have every competitor's pitch deck. It's another for them to have every competitor's deck and board seats or information rights for multiple companies in the space. (Information rights include actual monthly numbers, real churn, staffing plans and compensation, and much more sensitive data that wouldn't be included in a pitch.) At that point the extractive VCs aren't just investing in the market — they're the only party that can see it. Not even regulators have access to this breadth of data.

Where that leaves the market is that the Cancer Capital firms often have nearly complete information about a nascent market, acting as an information tollgate that every startup has to pass through at a certain scale. They suck in the pitch decks from every player in a market, and sometimes far more data than that, all without an obligation to invest in any of them.

And it gets worse.

Because these firms are committed to their ideological agendas, if they do see an idea they like, but they don't like the morals of the founder who pitched it (i.e. the founder has morals), they could elect to merely choose someone in their network to create a clone of the idea, and then hyper-fund that clone in order to kill the company that just pitched them. If that sounds awful to you, imagine how it feels to the multiple founders that this has happened to over the years. I've heard about it firsthand, though nobody will go on the record, because they are convinced it would be the end of their careers. The receipts I've seen make me 100% convinced, though.

And this is where those horrid money-chasing fake founders come back into the story. It's not just that the industry tolerates them. It's that an industry shaped by Cancer Capital now produces them. If you're a firm choosing between an obsessive builder who's got a clear vision for what they want in the world, and is going to fight you on terms, or a sycophant who'll take whatever you offer and execute the ideas laid out in the manifesto on your fund's homepage, the second one is the obvious choice. And there's no shortage of folks in that second category.

The Cancer Capital firms are now operating with something like X-ray vision over entire markets, being fed detailed information on emerging spaces by founders who are effectively coerced into handing over all of their most sensitive business data.

Meanwhile the other 99% of venture capital firms, who are still operating in the old world, are at a massive disadvantage, because their "deal flow" (the number of startups that come to pitch them on investing) is more constrained as they don't have the name recognition or coercive power that the hyper-scale firms do. The network effects are a lot like social media platforms — the giant ones are toxic, but a lot of people go there because they feel like everybody else is there. This isn't coincidence; the guys running the Cancer Capital firms made a huge part of their fortunes by investing in the biggest, worst social networking platforms.

Any way out?

It's easy to see the way the deck is stacked and to feel a sense of despair if you're trying to build a business or a product. But there are lots of ways out. The first few here are about staying out of the trap in the first place; the last two are about going after the trap itself. No individual action can solve a systemic problem, but all of these tactics together can begin to change these systems.

• Bootstrap. First, there's a big reason that the conventional wisdom in the early days of the web was to caution against ever taking venture capital funding: you often don't need it! As I noted in my last piece, legendary companies like Microsoft and Apple got to the launch of their earliest milestone products without any VC dollars, and your business will be more robust and resilient for having gotten on its feet without taking on those burdens. Put simply: Live within your means, don't raise VC.

• Build more efficiently. Many startups are finding that contemporary tools (for some, including LLMs) are letting them build products and go to market much more efficiently than before, obviating the need for raising giant amounts of money just to get something launched. By staying lean and remaining closely connected to a community that can support you, you eliminate the need to rely on outside funding. Open source and open communities can be a superpower here.

• Leak-proof the deck. If you're going to pitch anyway, pitch like everything in your deck is going to end up in front of your competitors, because there's a decent chance that it will. Founders often get coached to be exhaustive with every detailed number, every roadmap item, every honest weakness, but that's advice that only made sense when you could trust the people across the table. Give them only what they need in order to make a decision, and then hold the rest for later meetings once there's an actual commitment. Or: build your business to be fully transparent, where there are no secrets, and you don't have to worry about anything leaking, and there isn't any advantage to them having access to the data. Either way: protect yourself. And always, always compare notes with other founders. The VCs are already comparing notes about you. (I have a lot more advice about pitching VCs, but that's an entire other series of posts.)

• Other VCs. Finaly, one last investor option: work with the more conventional VC firms. This remains technically possible, albeit dangerous. There are many firms in the "99%" of the venture world that haven't fully embraced the toxicity of the Cancer Capital funds. Earlier I gave credit to the folks in our NYC tech community who've held the line, and I meant it — but their decency can't protect you from the structure they're operating inside. The challenge is, even though these may be run by thoughtful or decent people, if your company succeeds, you may well end up having to do a follow-on round of funding, and that increases the likelihood that you will have to do business with one of the bad actors. Plenty of folks are trying this path, but I would caution against it.

• Push for regulation. This option is hard at the federal level in the United States, due to the level of corruption under an authoritarian regime, but some limited wins, especially at state or local levels, may be possible. In the longer run, this has been the only mechanism that has truly held these kinds of abuses in check during prior historical precedents. Some state regulators may be willing to enforce rules against the worst behaviors that violate anticompetitive or anti-collusion laws.

• Encourage limited partners to divest. Many of the Cancer Capital firms rely on funds from sources like public retirement funds which often still have responsible investment commitments. These may still offer some possibility of accountability or leverage which could be used to get them to divest from these firms, and put some pressure on others to discourage them from enabling these kinds of bad behaviors.

On a company-wide Slack this morning, Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg announced he has been put on a paid leave of absence.

“And the biggest news: I won't be able to make the ELT tomorrow,” Matt wrote in an Announcement Slack. He continued, writing that Mark Davies, current Automattic Chief Financial Officer, has “conspired” with Automattic Board of Directors members Ann Dunwoody, Toni Schneider, and Sue Decker “behind my back and they voted to put me on a paid leave of absence. I voted against that.” 

He wrote that Davies was voted to be the new interim CEO. “I received the resolution 50 minutes before the meeting start, and requested repeatedly for time to have it reviewed by independent legal counsel, even a few hours, which was denied,” Mullenweg wrote.

Mullenweg is the founder of Automattic, the company that owns WordPress, Tumblr, Pocket Casts, and a host of other popular internet brands and pieces of software. Mullenweg has faced several controversies over his management of the company in recent years.

In the same Slack channel, Davies wrote that Mullenweg would remain a board member and “he will have a voice in setting direction and making decisions.”

"As you have seen from Matt's previous messages, Automattic's board has decided to ask Matt to step away from his CEO role and take a leave of absence,” Schneider wrote following Mullenweg’s message. “We have asked Mark Davies to assume the interim CEO role while Matt is out. We've worked closely with Mark over the years and we're confident he will steer the ship well while Matt is away. I'm sure you will have many questions and Mark and your leadership team will be available to answer them.” 

“I want to thank Matt for his support and I intend to support him, the Board, Automattic, and our customers during this interim situation,” Davies wrote in that Slack channel. “It will take me some time to come up to speed, but we'll move forward with transparency, communication, and teamwork.” He wrote that nothing will change as a result of Mullenweg’s leave.

Mullenweg, Automattic, Schneider, and Davies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

For the last few years, Mullenweg has waged a divisive legal battle with WP Engine, sparing publicly with opponents and peers on social media and in his personal blog. In 2024, he made an “Alignment Offer,” giving Automattic employees who disagreed with his stances the option to take six months of pay or $30,000, whichever was higher, with the stipulation that they would lose access to their work logins that same evening and would not be eligible for rehire.

One hundred and fifty-nine people took the offer and left. He then made another buyout offer, and threatened employees who spoke to the press with termination, saying, “exit gracefully, or be fired tomorrow with no severance.” 

Most recently, Automattic attempted to claim it owns the word “automatic.” 

Thomas Hawk posted a photo:

Thomas Hawk posted a photo:

Mr Mikage (ミスター御影） posted a photo:

Slovenië stond tot voor kort bekend als een van de meest kritische landen in Europa als het aankwam op Israëlisch geweld in Gaza en de Westelijke Jordaanoever. De nieuwe regering gooit het roer om en steunt Israël juist.

Bayeux Go! A playable video game of the Bayeux Tapestry. “Thou art Harold. Win Thine Battle. Tap to starte.”

on the water photography has added a photo to the pool:

Meganebashi (眼鏡橋, lit. Spectacles Bridge) is the most remarkable of several stone bridges that span the Nakashima River in downtown Nagasaki. The bridge, which gets its name from the resemblance it has to a pair of spectacles when reflected in the river water, is a popular tourist attraction and is designated as an important cultural property.

The bridge was originally built in 1634, its construction overseen by the Chinese monk who would go on to become the resident priest of Kofukuji Temple, which is located a short walk away. The bridge, along with many of the others along the river, was badly damaged by floodwaters in 1982, but has since been repaired with recovered stones.

There is a stone walkway along the river bank that makes for a pleasant stroll with nice views of the water and bridges. The walkway has a tranquil atmosphere and is accessed by steps from street level positioned at various points along the river.

Source: Japan Guide

Mr Mikage (ミスター御影） has added a photo to the pool:

After their record-breaking feats last year in the Champions League, Arsenal are at it again. But having been delayed along with hundreds of travelling supporters by travel chaos on Tuesday, Mikel Arteta’s side had to bide their time against Napoli until Martin Ødegaard continued his rich vein of goalscoring to start the new campaign with the crucial strike.

Perhaps it was the fact they were forced to wear red shorts for the first time since a Premier League game against Watford in 2022 due to Uefa’s insistence that Arsenal were not quite at their flowing best here. Yet they were deserved winners in the end and the substitute, Noni Madueke, should have made the victory more comprehensive in the dying moments as Napoli chased the game. Having come so close to breaking their duck in this competition last year after becoming the first team to win all eight of their group stage matches, Arsenal look equipped to go all the way again if Ødegaard can keep up this sparkling form.

Continue reading...

NEW YORK (ANP) - Coco Gauff neemt het tegen Elena Rybakina op in de halve finales van de US Open. De 22-jarige Amerikaanse versloeg in New York in drie sets Mirra Andrejeva uit Rusland: 3-6 7-6 (7) 6-2.

Rybakina had eerder op de dag in drie sets gewonnen van de Chinese Zheng Qinwen en zich daarmee ook verzekerd van de eerste plaats op de wereldranglijst. De andere halve finale gaat tussen de als eerste geplaatste Aryna Sabalenka uit Belarus en de Amerikaanse Jessica Pegula.

De als vijfde geplaatste Andrejeva won eerder dit jaar Roland Garros. Coco Gauff, de nummer 4 van de plaatsingslijst, won het toernooi in Parijs een jaar eerder en won in 2023 in New York haar eerste grandslamtitel.

NIJKERK (ANP) - Het verkeer op de A28 kan weer richting Utrecht via de Hardenbergerbrug, meldt Rijkswaterstaat. De wegbeheerder heeft herstelwerkzaamheden aan die kant van de brug afgerond. Het vrijgeven van de rijrichting Zwolle duurt wat langer. "Daar wordt nog hard gewerkt aan het afbouwen van de verkeersmaatregelen", aldus Rijkswaterstaat.

Maandag constateerde Rijkswaterstaat dat er met spoed onderhoud nodig was aan de brug bij het Gelderse Nijkerk, omdat de veiligheid van de constructie van de verbinding niet kon worden gegarandeerd. Er was zand en grind weggespoeld rond de pijlers van de brug.

Eerder op woensdag meldde minister Vincent Karremans (Infrastructuur en Waterstaat) dat de brug om middernacht weer gebruikt kan worden.

MADRID (ANP/AFP) - De Spaanse veiligheidsdienst heeft voorafgaand aan de massale instroom van migranten in de exclave Ceuta al gewaarschuwd voor een dergelijk incident. De Spaanse premier Pedro Sánchez zei eerder in het parlement juist dat er geen signalen waren voor zo'n instroom, maar uit nu vrijgegeven documenten blijkt het tegendeel.

De grensdivisie van de politie (CENIF) kwam met een waarschuwing op 29 juli, de dag voordat de toestroom van naar schatting 80.000 migranten naar Ceuta begon. In het bericht staat dat migrantengroepen bezig waren met het organiseren van een massale binnenkomst in de nacht van 29 op 30 juli. Ook werd vastgesteld dat in de weken daarvoor al veel meer mensen dan normaal hadden geprobeerd om de exclave te bereiken.

De Spaanse regering kreeg veel kritiek over de migrantencrisis en de oppositie stelde dat er signalen waren genegeerd. De regering kondigde dinsdag aan inlichtingen vrij te geven om transparant te zijn over welke kennis er op voorhand was.

OPINION Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon publicly announced his resignation on X late Monday over concerns that AI "could kill us all by the end of the decade." A lot of people have expressed opinions about his point of view, leading to more than 110 million views of the message in less than 24 hours, perhaps helped along by X algorithms that boost messages critical of owner Elon Musk's AI rivals, Anthropic and OpenAI. But the real problem isn't the models themselves, but the companies who carelessly unleash them on the world and don't take any responsibility for what their products do Coxon's former colleague, science lead Evan Hubinger, insists his view is a fair assessment of what employees really think. "Jacob is correct here – we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10 percent within the next decade," wrote Hubinger in a social media post. "I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to." (Aside: If you want a surefire bet on a prediction market, take the "no." If you're right, you get paid. If you're wrong, there's no one to pay. The problem of course is prediction market manipulation: Those betting against you might steer us toward the apocalypse to score a Pyrrhic victory.) There are good reasons to be concerned about the impact of AI. Coxon and Hubinger obviously have deep knowledge of the technology. But their broader concerns about how AI affects the world are unpersuasive. For example, Coxon said, "These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. … No other human activity poses this level of danger." Here's one: Human-induced climate change. In 2023, according to researchers, more than 178,000 deaths can be attributed to a global heat wave. "More than half (54.29 percent) of heatwave-related deaths were attributable to human-induced climate change," they claim. That's 96,636 deaths attributable to human activity – or perhaps lack of it – just in the context of a heat wave. The World Health Organization says, "Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone." Some portion of that follows from human activity, perhaps including the construction of data centers that put millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. Commercial AI chatbots have allegedly played a role in a few dozen deaths, some of which were suicides – a small fraction of the 48,824 suicide deaths in 2024, per the CDC. Broad categories where AI is presumably doing measurable harm include warfare (e.g. AI-directed drones), AI-related medical errors, AI vision system failures in self-driving cars, and AI-driven social media – algorithmic incitement that can drive violence or shape policies that lead to conflict or death via global healthcare funding cuts. At the same time, some of that harm may be balanced on a statistical level by lives saved through AI tech. But Anthropic researchers don't seem to have much to say about these very real and present dangers – rather, their main concern is that AI models might become smarter than humans through reinforcement learning and somehow seize power and wipe out humanity. "I think the risk from present models is low," said Hubinger. "What I am worried about is superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said is happening faster than we thought." How this might happen is left to the imagination. But assuming for a moment that it's a plausible possibility, the Skynet scenario would require monumental human stupidity alongside the emergence of superintelligence. And human stupidity is worth worrying about. Incidents like the hacking of Hugging Face by OpenAI's evaluation models would not be possible without human irresponsibility and a regulatory environment that accommodates recklessness. Autopilot for cars? Neat. Try not to kill anyone. Letting AI bots roam the internet and take arbitrary action? Cool. Let's see what happens. We'll deal with accountability later. To mitigate AI risk, society could pass laws to put executives in jail when their models do harm. There is precedent: Oliver Schmidt, general manager of Volkswagen's environmental and engineering office in Michigan, received a seven-year prison sentence for his role in the car maker's effort to manipulate emissions tests. Selling unsafe airbags merits criminal prosecution, even if the execs paid fines instead of doing time. Selling unsafe dehumidifiers earned the execs behind Gree USA, Inc. jail sentences of more than four years. If AI models really are as dangerous and out of control as Anthropic employees suggest, hold people accountable for the harm they cause. The AI industry might argue that imprisoning execs for shipping unsafe models would mean no AI models get released. And that would be the point: AI companies would be responsible for model safety. I'm personally hoping to see this billboard copy along US 101 in Silicon Valley: "Did Claude rm -rf /* your SSD? You may be entitled to compensation." ®

It’s been a long time since Apple introduced a truly new product. The world finally got one today in the form of the folding iPhone Duo, and while it's new for Apple, it's not new for the industry. Nonetheless, Apple is once again hoping to validate a mostly moribund market as it did with tablets and smartwatches – folding phones only made up 1.6% of total smartphone sales last year, according to Counterpoint Research. Apple announced the iPhone Duo – did no one check the list of cursed gadget brands? – on Wednesday during new CEO John Ternus’ first crack at an Apple keynote, and it's a foldable iPhone. Given its aspect ratio, it’s probably more apt to call it an iPadphone, though. Ternus criticized the shape of other foldable smartphones, likening them to “just two phones strapped together” rather than a purpose-built foldable device. The Duo is intended to break that mold, though it was a little hard to tell from the event. Folded, the Duo has an oddly square shape that Apple described as being “passport sized,” with a 5.4” screen. When opened, the Duo has a 7.6” screen – not much smaller than the 8.3” screen on the iPad mini, which in turn is just a bit smaller than Huawei’s massive 10.3” tri-fold device. Speaking of screens, anyone who’s had an opportunity to play with a foldable smartphone knows their durability is abysmal. The original Samsung foldables were so soft they could be scored with a fingernail, and while successive models have improved, they still aren’t as hard as regular glass. Apple had plenty of platitudes to deliver about the screen, of course: Its many layers use a “visco-elastic adhesive” to allow components to slide against each other so everything folds more easily, and there’s a titanium plate at the back to keep the durability up, too. But what of its hardness? Not a word. As for the hinge – the bane of every foldable smartphone since the first Galaxy Fold hit shelves in 2019 – Apple claims that “over 100 tiny precision components” and the assistance of AI will ensure it's a tight and reliable fit. It’s worth pointing out, however, that Samsung has released eight generations of Galaxy Fold, and iFixit says the hinge is still its weakness. The Galaxy Fold 8, mind you, is only rated at IP48, meaning it’s not completely dust-tight, while the iPhone Duo claims to be IP68, meaning it’s completely dust-tight, though we’d caution waiting to see what the initial teardowns determine before deciding if that’s accurate. Either way, if you’re going to actually spring for this $1,999 phone you’d better plan to get an Apple Care plan, too. Unnecessary introductions There’s another big sticking point about the iPhone Duo that needs to be addressed, and that’s what it does with iOS. Apple apparently knows that such a wide device is going to make using the iOS dock, and other interface buttons less practical, so it’s decided to move all of them to the right side of the iOS screen. Navigation buttons, app interfaces, and everything one would use to get around is now located on the side to, in Apple’s words, “maximize vertical space for content.” That’s all well and good, but it means developers need to make arrangements for the iPhone Duo. Apple knows this, as it made sure to mention a new API that developers can use to adapt their apps. For what it's worth, a revamped version of Siri launching this fall has also required developers to adapt to its presence on Apple devices. According to the New York Times, that hasn’t been going too well, with many big developers yet to make the necessary changes to enable support for Apple Intelligence and its interface with Siri in their apps. That’s for a feature that extends across Apple’s ecosystem, mind you. The Duo is one single device. The Duo also only has two cameras to the iPhone Pro series’ triple lenses, and takes a step backwards by ditching FaceID for a TouchID button embedded in the side button. Apple tends to have a wait-and-see approach to new technology, joining the game late after the competition has had a chance to flounder around and make bad decisions with early models. It’s not clear whether the Duo will be a prime example of that philosophy in action, or whether it’ll join Apple’s other recent developments, like the Vision Pro, in relative obscurity. Ternus and company at least chose a good name if the product withers: No one remembers Microsoft’s Duo either. ®