Why Tech Oligarchs Are Willing to Risk Apocalypse; The New York Times, September 12, 2026

 MICHELLE GOLDBERG, The New York Times; Why Tech Oligarchs Are Willing to Risk Apocalypse

"In 2023, the billionaire tech investor Marc Andreessen published “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto,” with a section titled, “Becoming Technological Supermen.” In it, he borrowed language from the Italian futurist — and fascist — Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, writing, “Technology must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.” He quoted Friedrich Nietzsche to argue that absent such an assault, life becomes meaningless and small. In a section titled “The Enemy,” Andreessen listed ideas that would restrain technology’s momentum, including “tech ethics” and the concept of “existential risk.”

Part of the reason the public has turned so quickly and decisively against A.I. is the bizarre mismatch between the costs they’re being asked to bear and the rewards they expect to receive. Data centers blight the landscape, A.I. slop degrades the culture, chatbots help kids cheat in school and sometimes drive people mad, and technology executives prophesy mass joblessness. For this, ordinary people get improved search engines and help writing emails. Great benefits could be on the horizon — we are constantly assured that A.I. will enable huge medical advances — but they’re not here yet to justify the hazards.

For those most invested in A.I., though, the intolerable risk lies in failing to advance the technology, and thus being confined to stultifying, finite ordinary existence. “For decades, large tech firms have insisted that the technologies they own and control are ‘inevitable’ and thus unstoppable,” write Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor in their trenchant new book, “End Times Fascism.” “Now they increasingly claim the authority of the supernatural: the right to usher in a new stage of human evolution, governed by deities of their creation.” As Klein and Taylor point out, these visions, so obviously derived from sci-fi and video games, can be hard to take seriously. But it doesn’t matter whether you believe in a future of cybernetic ascendence. The point is that the people driving the A.I. revolution do.

And if things go wrong, they have backup plans."

Anthropic C.E.O. Calls for A.I. Slowdown; The New York Times, September 12, 2026

 Mike Isaac, The New York Times; Anthropic C.E.O. Calls for A.I. Slowdown

In a 3,800-word essay, Dario Amodei laid out the rapidly advancing capabilities of artificial intelligence and said there needed to be greater safety controls across the industry.

"The chief executive of Anthropic called for a global slowdown of artificial intelligence development in a 3,800-word essay on Saturday, just days after one of the company’s employees quit over concerns about the safety of the technology.

Dario Amodei, who co-founded Anthropic to focus on securely and carefully building A.I., wrote that while he believed the technology could bring many benefits, it was advancing at too quick a pace for researchers to continue safely.

“Over the last few months, I have become convinced that fully addressing the risks requires even more prudence — not just investing in risk prevention, but pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up,” Mr. Amodei said. “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of A.I. models. Progress will still seem fast, and we must make wise use of the time we gain.”

His call for an industrywide pause follows months of escalating concerns across the technology industry as A.I. model development has made significant strides at companies like OpenAI, Google’s DeepMind and Anthropic."

Catholic tech leaders urge ethical boundaries for AI; EWTN News, September 11, 2026

 Emma R.C. Lyons, EWTN News; Catholic tech leaders urge ethical boundaries for AI 

"Catholic leaders discussed rising benefits and concerns of technology and how faith and ethics apply when using artificial intelligence.

Bringing together leading technological officers from around the globe, Montse Alvarado, president and chief operating officer of EWTN News, spoke with industry professionals about the growing use of AI in a Sept. 9 special, “Beyond Fear: A Catholic Vision for Artificial Intelligence.”

Pope Leo XIV framed the intensifying debate over AI with the May 25 launch of his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. Tech leaders said AI is rapidly reshaping society and the Church, offering powerful tools for ministry while also requiring firm ethical boundaries, human‑centered leadership, and faith‑guided discernment to ensure the technology strengthens human dignity.

“There’s a good side to that exponential innovation because it helps us get to the most vulnerable people faster,” said Joel Chakra, president of Tim Tebow Foundation and venture capitalist in AI technology companies.

“It can it can really rob us of our true humanity, or it can enhance our lives. And the choice is ours,” said Arthur C. Brooks, American author and academic who wrote the foreword to Magnifica Humanitas.

Brooks said the technology can either diminish or deepen human dignity, depending on how it is used. He added that despite real concerns about job loss and disruption, he remains optimistic because humans are “unbelievably ingenious” and made to solve problems."

AI models are becoming unknowable; Axios, September 4, 2026

Madison Mills, Axios; AI models are becoming unknowable

"AI models may be getting safer while also getting harder to monitor. Which side of that seesaw prevails could determine whether AI is scaled safely or ruins civilization as we know it.

Why it matters: Right now both options are running full steam and no one knows who's in charge of making sure the right one wins."

Can we trust AI models? Yale researchers explore the roots of chatbot errors; YaleNews, June 12, 2026

 Mike Cummings, YaleNews; Can we trust AI models? Yale researchers explore the roots of chatbot errors

"The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has inserted a new character into people’s lives: the chatbot. 

Individuals now engage with agentic AI chatbots to perform a growing number of tasks; They can help a person shop for a new laptop, manage email, or plan a vacation.   

And while these interactions can save time and increase productivity, they also carry risk. Large language models (LLM) — the AI systems trained on massive datasets to generate human-like text — are imperfect. They hallucinate. They misinterpret. They make mistakes. 

Two multidisciplinary teams of researchers associated with the Center for Algorithms, Data, and Market Design at Yale are pursuing projects that aim to balance the capability and safety of AI systems and improve interactions between users and AI models. 

Yale News recently spoke with members of both teams about their research projects."

Pope Leo Compares AI Threat to Biblical ‘Tower of Babel’; The Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2026

 Margherita Stancati and Sam Schechner, The Wall Street Journal; Pope Leo Compares AI Threat to Biblical ‘Tower of Babel’

"Pope Leo XIV warned that artificial intelligence “threatens to normalize an anti-human vision” and said that the concentration of immense digital power in the hands of a few private actors must be countered.

The pontiff’s encyclical letter—a text that is poised to define Leo’s papacy—reads like a sharp warning to Silicon Valley executives and humanity more broadly about the future of civilization as new technologies rapidly advance.

The risk, he said, is that humans will be reduced “to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency.”

Leo used two biblical images to describe the choice humanity faces. 

“The primary choice is not between a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem,” he wrote. 

In the Bible, the Tower of Babel symbolizes a top-down, grandiose project where decisions are driven by pride, profit and a push for homogenization, the pope suggested in his text. In the rebuilding of Jerusalem, diverse people worked together to rebuild the ruined walls and established a fraternal coexistence within them, he added.

Leo’s encyclical has been long-awaited by policymakers, business leaders and different faith groups who see the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, as a source of ethical guidance on tech policy."

Pope Leo Warns of Risks From A.I. in 42,300-Word Encyclical; The New York Times, May 25, 2026

 Motoko Rich and Elisabetta Povoledo, The New York Times; Pope Leo Warns of Risks From A.I. in 42,300-Word Encyclical

The document marks a powerful foray by the leader of the Roman Catholic church into the debate about the misuse or overuse of artificial intelligence.

"Pope Leo XIV on Monday set out a sweeping vision for corporate executives, politicians and individuals who will shape and be shaped by the future of artificial intelligence, warning leaders to safeguard humanity from A.I.’s most disruptive effects.

Leo’s declaration came in the form of a papal encyclical, an open letter to “all people of good will” that ran to roughly 42,300 words in its English version. It outlined his desire to protect human dignity and agency in an age in which technology threatens to replace humans in many professional and social roles. He presented it alongside Christopher Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic, a major A.I. developer, in a symbolic gesture of dialogue between leaders of the spiritual and technological worlds.

While emphasizing that “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity,” he wrote that “the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs.”

Among other things, Leo called for:

• government regulation of the private companies that are driving the development of A.I.
• protection and retraining for workers whose jobs are threatened
• education to help students think critically about the technology
• action to protect children from violent, hypersexualized or fake information online that is often generated by A.I.
• safeguards to ensure that humans, not artificial intelligence, remain responsible for all decisions regarding the use of weapons.

Above all he emphasized the importance of retaining a fundamental social role for all human beings. “A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity, a lack of responsibility and the absence of daily tasks and stimuli, resulting in human and cultural impoverishment,” he said."

Pentagon Standoff Is a Decisive Moment for How A.I. Will Be Used in War; The New York Times, February 27, 2026

 Adam Satariano, Julian E. Barnes and Sheera Frenkel , The New York Times; Pentagon Standoff Is a Decisive Moment for How A.I. Will Be Used in War

The Pentagon’s contract dispute with Anthropic is part of a wider clash about the use of artificial intelligence for national security and who decides on any safeguards.

"The fight between the Department of Defense and the artificial intelligence company Anthropic has ostensibly been about a $200 million contract over the use of A.I. in classified systems.

But as the two sides careen toward a 5:01 p.m. Friday deadlineover terms of the contract, far more is at stake.

Amid the legalese and heated rhetoric are questions being asked globally about how to use A.I., what the technology’s risks are and who gets to decide on setting any limits — the makers of A.I. or national governments.

Underlying it all is fear and awe over the dizzying pace of A.I. progress and the technology’s uncertain impact on society."

Chatbot Psychosis: Data, Insights, and Practical Tips for Chatbot Developers and Users; Santa Clara University, Friday, November 7, 2025 12 Noon PST, 3 PM EST

  Santa Clara University ; Chatbot Psychosis: Data, Insights, and Practical Tips for Chatbot Developers and Users

"A number of recent articles, in The New York Times and elsewhere, have described the experience of “chatbot psychosis” that some people develop as they interact with services like ChatGPT. What do we know about chatbot psychosis? Is there a trend of such psychosis at scale? What do you learn if you sift through over one million words comprising one such experience? And what are some practical steps that companies can take to protect their users and reduce the risk of such episodes?

A computer scientist with a background in economics, Steven Adler started to focus on AI risk topics (and AI broadly) a little over a decade ago, and worked at OpenAI from late 2020 through 2024, leading various safety-related research projects and products there. He now writes about what’s happening in AI safety–and argues that safety and technological progress can very much complement each other, and in fact require each other, if the goal is to unlock the uses of AI that people want."

AI as Intellectual Property: A Strategic Framework for the Legal Profession; JD Supra, September 18, 2025

 Co-authors:James E. Malackowski and Eric T. Carnick , JD Supra; AI as Intellectual Property: A Strategic Framework for the Legal Profession

"The artificial intelligence revolution presents the legal profession with its most significant practice development opportunity since the emergence of the internet. AI spending across hardware, software, and services reached $279.22 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 35.9% through 2030, reaching $1.8 trillion.[i] AI is rapidly enabling unprecedented efficiencies, insights, and capabilities in industry. The innovations underlying these benefits are often the result of protectable intellectual property (IP) assets. The ability to raise capital and achieve higher valuations can often be traced back to such IP. According to data from Carta, startups categorized as AI companies raised approximately one-third of total venture funding in 2024. Looking only at late-stage funding (Series E+), almost half (48%) of total capital raised went to AI companies.[ii]Organizations that implement strategic AI IP management can realize significant financial benefits.

At the same time, AI-driven enhancements have introduced profound industry risks, e.g., disruption of traditional business models; job displacement and labor market reductions; ethical and responsible AI concerns; security, regulatory, and compliance challenges; and potentially, in more extreme scenarios, broad catastrophic economic consequences. Such risks are exacerbated by the tremendous pace of AI development and adoption, in some cases surpassing societal understanding and regulatory frameworks. According to McKinsey, 78% of respondents say their organizations use AI in at least one business function, up

from 72% in early 2024 and 55% a year earlier.[iii]

This duality—AI as both a catalyst and a disruptor—is now a feature of the modern global economy. There is an urgent need for legal frameworks that can protect AI innovation, facilitate the proper commercial development and deployment of AI-related IP, and navigate the risks and challenges posed by this new technology. Legal professionals who embrace AI as IP™ will benefit from this duality. Early indicators suggest significant advantages for legal practitioners who develop specialized AI as IP expertise, while traditional IP practices may face commoditization pressures."

A.I.’s Prophet of Doom Wants to Shut It All Down; The New York Times, September 12, 2025

  Kevin Roose , The New York Times; A.I.’s Prophet of Doom Wants to Shut It All Down

"The first time I met Eliezer Yudkowsky, he said there was a 99.5 percent chance that A.I. was going to kill me.

I didn’t take it personally. Mr. Yudkowsky, 46, is the founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, a Berkeley-based nonprofit that studies risks from advanced artificial intelligence.

For the last two decades, he has been Silicon Valley’s version of a doomsday preacher — telling anyone who will listen that building powerful A.I. systems is a terrible idea, one that will end in disaster.

That is also the message of Mr. Yudkowsky’s new book, “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.” The book, co-written with MIRI’s president, Nate Soares, is a distilled, mass-market version of the case they have been making to A.I. insiders for years.

Their goal is to stop the development of A.I. — and the stakes, they say, are existential...

And what about the good things that A.I. can do? Wouldn’t shutting down A.I. development also mean delaying cures for diseases, A.I. tutors for students and other benefits?

“We totally acknowledge the good effects,” he replied. “Yep, these things could be great tutors. Yep, these things sure could be useful in drug discovery. Is that worth exterminating all life on Earth? No.”"

GenAI in focus: Understanding the latest trends and considerations; Thomson Reuters, June 27, 2024

 Thomson Reuters; GenAI in focus: Understanding the latest trends and considerations

"Legal professionals, whether they work for law firms, corporate legal departments, government, or in risk and fraud, have generally positive perceptions of generative AI (GenAI). According to the professionals surveyed in the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2024 GenAI in Professional Services report, 85% of law firm and corporate attorneys, 77% of government legal practitioners, and 82% of corporate risk professionals believe that GenAI can be applied to industry work.  

But should it be applied? There, those positive perceptions softened a bit, with 51% of law firm respondents, 60% of corporate legal practitioners, 62% of corporate risk professionals, and 40% of government legal respondents saying yes.  

In short, professionals’ perceptions of AI include concerns and interest in its capabilities. Those concerns include the ethics of AI usage and mitigating related risks. These are important considerations. But they don’t need to keep professionals from benefiting from all that GenAI can do. Professionals can minimize many of the potential risks by becoming familiar with responsible AI practices."