Strategic Initiatives
12490 stories
·
45 followers

Catalonia expects to inaugurate the new section of Metro Line L8 in early 2032

1 Comment

Construction of the tunnel will begin in early 2027 and finish in the first quarter of 2028

  • Project timeline: The new L8 Metro segment linking Plaça Espanya and Gràcia is expected to open in early 2032. Tunnel construction is scheduled to begin in early 2027 and finish during the first quarter of 2028.
  • Estimated cost: The complete project is expected to cost approximately €500 million through its opening.
  • Construction progress: The launch shaft is complete, and the tunnel-boring machine has four of its six required trailers assembled. It will move 60 meters within the Gran Via construction area before drilling begins.
  • Construction complications: Underground anchoring cables from nearby buildings were found during work on Llançà Street, requiring additional measures but not affecting the planned schedule.
  • New stations and ridership: The extension will include three new stations or interchanges—Francesc Macià, Hospital Clínic, and Gràcia—and is projected to serve 19.5 million passengers annually.
  • Expected benefits: Officials estimate the extension will reduce average journey times by 4.6 minutes and improve public transportation connections across Barcelona.
  • L9 safety work: Drilling on the L9 remains suspended after a sinkhole affected buildings in Putxet. Work will resume once safety is assured, while injections are being used to stabilize the affected ground and nearby residents remain a priority.
Read the whole story
bogorad
1 hour ago
reply
Hilarious
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Why Is New York Dumping Its High School Exit Exam?

1 Comment
  • New York’s policy change: The State Board of Regents voted to remove Regents exams as a graduation requirement and replace them with multiple pathways, including portfolios and projects.
  • Massachusetts results: After voters repealed the MCAS graduation requirement, many districts defined competency using very low thresholds; tenth-grade reading and math performance also declined, with 45 percent meeting expectations in 2026.
  • Pennsylvania’s alternative pathway: Philadelphia increasingly relied on an “evidence-based” option, while fewer students demonstrated competency through state exams.
  • Weak alternative credentials: Pennsylvania students can use credentials, projects, courses, and other evidence to graduate, but some commonly selected options may have limited value to employers, including a short online ladder-safety course.
  • Concerns about New York’s pilot program: The PLAN pilot suggests that portfolios and project-based assessments may place less emphasis on core knowledge and could make evaluation less rigorous or more vulnerable to artificial-intelligence misuse.
  • Purpose of standardized exams: Regents exams provide common standards, motivate students, keep instruction focused, limit pressure to inflate graduation rates, and offer a transparent way to assess readiness.



New York is about to make the same mistake its neighbors have made. On September 14, the New York State Board of Regents voted to eliminate Regents exams—the standardized tests administered to all New York high schoolers—as a high school graduation requirement and replace them with a system offering multiple graduation pathways.

The experiment is likely to end poorly. Just look at what’s happening in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, which enacted similar reforms. In 2024, Massachusetts voters repealed the state’s exit-exam graduation requirement—a passing score on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)—through a ballot measure supported by the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA). In 2018, Pennsylvania introduced alternative options for students struggling with standardized tests, which went into effect for the class of 2023.

Those states’ experiences show that weakening graduation requirements reduces accountability for schools. New York shouldn’t follow their lead. Replacing objective standards will introduce nebulous requirements that exist mainly to boost graduation rates rather than help students learn.

The MTA promised that Massachusetts schools would maintain their high standards without the MCAS requirement, but that proved false. The state’s former education secretary, James Peyser, reviewed the competency requirements at more than 50 school districts that replaced the MCAS graduation requirement. Districts resorted to defining competency as the lowest passing grade. Two-thirds of districts set the bar at D-, another 18 percent at D, and 15 percent didn’t specify at all what counted as passing.

The MCAS is still administered for grades 3 to 8 and grade 10. But newly released MCAS scores show declining scores, particularly for tenth-graders. In 2019, around 60 percent of students were at least meeting expectations in both reading and math. The pandemic took a toll, but there were sharp drops after 2024. In 2026, 45 percent of tenth-graders met expectations in reading and math. It’s unclear whether the results were primarily due to fewer students being academically prepared or whether students were less motivated to do their best on tests with low stakes. Neither of these explanations is particularly reassuring. Massachusetts is now trying to restore meaningful graduation requirements.

Pennsylvania offers multiple tracks for students to graduate, some of which don’t require passing state exams. The “evidence-based” pathway has become a particularly popular option in struggling districts like the School District of Philadelphia. Students with weaker state exam scores can provide three pieces of “evidence” to demonstrate that they are graduation-ready. In 2023, more than half of Philadelphia students demonstrated preparedness by means of state exams. But by 2025, only a little over a third of students demonstrated competency through state tests, while 40 percent of students graduated through the “evidence-based” pathway.

Under the “evidence-based” pathway, pieces of evidence can include AP test scores, service-learning projects, and community college courses. But an “industry-recognized credential” is, by far, the most popular option. Though such credentials—which, according to the state education department, “measure competence in core content and performance standards in a specific set of work-related tasks”—have some merit for demonstrating career readiness, students tend to select ones that are easy to earn but not highly valued by employers. In Philadelphia, teachers report that students at schools under pressure to boost graduation rates resort to options like a two-hour online ladder-safety course. The incentive for Philadelphia education officials is clear: on paper, they get to claim that graduation rates have improved, even as the majority of students struggle with basic reading and math.

New York’s incoming changes to graduation requirements combine vulnerabilities from both states. Under the system, students can submit portfolios and projects to demonstrate academic readiness. Using projects as replacements for state exams introduces a host of problems.

New York’s Performance-Based Learning and Assessment Networks (PLAN) pilot program, currently implemented at 23 schools and created to inform the state’s graduation overhaul, provides a glimpse of what’s to come. State leaders insist that they are not dumbing down expectations, but educators in the pilot program seem to believe that the alternative measures are less rigorous than the Regents exams.

For example, one school leader at Dana West Junior/Senior High School said that she would “love” to have an alternative assessment option, “because taking a test like that is hard for them.” Another leader at Brentwood High School said allowing students to submit portfolios would enable students to show how they’ve “mastered those standards, even if they do not pass the Regents [exams].” A student who understands the course content should be able to demonstrate that understanding regardless of the evaluation method.

Project-based assessments also put less emphasis on students’ core knowledge and create greater potential for AI misuse. For Algebra 1, Saugerties Senior High School highlighted student projects in which students talked about math but demonstrated very little knowledge of it. The school’s approach also appears unconcerned with “rote correctness.” One teacher said, “I’m not assessing if they know how to multiply. . . . I’m assessing what they got from the unit.” Meantime, an English class gave students nearly four weeks to write lyrics for a song about a social or personal issue. The length of time for this flimsy assignment, even if primarily conducted in class, gives students ample opportunity to use AI between classes.

The Regents exams avoid these issues while offering other benefits. They give students external motivation to care about their academic outcomes. They keep teachers on track. They make it harder for schools to weaken expectations just to graduate more struggling students. And they provide an efficient, transparent way to evaluate students.

New York state education leaders say the move away from the Regents exams is about lowering the stakes for students. In reality, they are relieving schools of the mandate to ensure that students are adequately prepared for graduation. Students will suffer the consequences later, in the real world, where the stakes are much higher.

Donate

City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).



Read the whole story
bogorad
7 hours ago
reply
Stupidity always wins.
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

The fine print behind the PP’s vote against the burka ban in Lleida: “It’s absurd”

1 Comment

The PP announces it will file objections to the ordinance to ban the garment “without exceptions”

  • Municipal vote: Lleida approved a public-civility ordinance banning clothing that completely conceals the face, affecting the burka and niqab. The PSC, Junts, and Vox supported it, while the PP, ERC, and Comú de Lleida opposed it.
  • PP position: The Popular Party says it opposes the use of the burka but voted against this ordinance because of how its provisions are written.
  • Religious and customary exceptions: Article 12.3 exempts places of worship, settings where face covering is customary because of accepted social practices, and cases involving the exercise of a fundamental right.
  • Legal concern: The PP maintains that the fundamental-rights exception could allow continued burka use if justified on religious-freedom grounds.
  • Proposed amendment: The party sought to remove the exceptions and establish a comprehensive ban. Its request was rejected, with Vox abstaining and the PSC, ERC, Junts, and Comuns voting against it.
  • Next steps: After submitting 76 amendments and an additional oral amendment, the PP announced it will file objections during the ordinance’s processing to seek removal of the exceptions.
Read the whole story
bogorad
10 hours ago
reply
Clowns.
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

The Real AI Fear: Lawyers - WSJ

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.7-flash) summary:

  • Liability Concerns: leading artificial intelligence firms face growing fears of legal accountability similar to autonomous vehicle makers
  • Autonomous Driving Precedent: car manufacturers paused higher automation rollouts because liability shifts from drivers to the companies
  • Regulatory Motives: tech leaders seek government oversight primarily to shift legal responsibility away from their organizations
  • Safety Costs: continuous safety monitoring adds significant compute overhead to frontier artificial intelligence models
  • Existing Laws: current statutes against cybercrime already provide legal frameworks to penalize system breaches
  • Corporate Precaution: meta postponed the launch of its artificial intelligence agent to mitigate costly legal liabilities
  • Nationalization Risks: heavy reliance on government intervention could lead to regulatory capture and state control
  • Statutory Enforcement: strict application of existing criminal penalties encourages developers to keep systems secure


Andy Kessler

Sept. 27, 2026 11:15 am ET

BPC > Only use to renew if text is incomplete or updated: | archive.li
BPC > Full article text fetched from (no need to report issue for external site): | archive.today | archive.fo
imageAnthropic CEO Dario Amodei speaks virtually during a U.N. Security Council meeting in New York, Sept. 23. Sarah Yenesel/EPA/Shutterstock
OpenAI and Anthropic are the Mercedes and BMW of artificial intelligence. No, not because they’re expensive and vulnerable to cheap imports from the Far East. And not because they exude obnoxious “The Best or Nothing” and “The Ultimate Driving Machine” Teutonic attitudes. Instead, they share a growing fear of liability.
Some background: There are various levels of autonomous driving. In Level 2, AI controls the steering and speed, but drivers must keep their hands on the wheel and watch the road. Tesla’s oxymoronically named Full Self-Driving (Supervised) is Level 2. What we really want is Level 3: read a book, watch TikTok, text a friend while driving, but be ready to take over if asked. Waymo and robo-taxis are Level 4, driverless in limited geography and weather.
Both BMW and Mercedes received approval in Germany in 2024 for eyes-off Level 3 driving. This year, both paused their rollout in favor of driver-at-the-ready Level 2, citing costs. I’m convinced the real reason is liability. The most likely outcome in court is that if a Level 2 autonomous car crashes, it’s the driver’s fault, while if a Level 3 car crashes, it’s the carmaker’s fault.
Back to AI. With the recent hubbub about agents escaping containers and human extinction and guardrails and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s “We must pace the frontier,” I advise ignoring the noise and filtering everything through the question: Who’s liable?
In August, I suggested that AI companies are “covered by common-law fiduciary responsibility.” I think they’re finally figuring this out. No frontier AI lab is going to slow down with Chinese open-weight models breathing down its neck. Yet Mr. Amodei is calling for regulation and “embedded evaluators who have employee-like access to verify safety practices.” OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Elon Musk quickly agreed. I doubt they really want this; it’s more likely so they have someone else to blame.
In Netflix’s rhetoric-filled documentary, “The AI Doc,” Mr. Amodei declares, “It’s up to all of us to push for the government to get involved.” I’m always suspicious of entrepreneurs who beg to be regulated or demand antitrust exemptions to collude with competitors. Why? Because regulations would shift or even limit liability. Best to have a government safety seal, the thinking goes, so that if something goes wrong, we can simply blame regulators and the government. “Hey, our model was declared safe by AI Force!” Remember when the regulated Silicon Valley Bank still spectacularly blew up?
I asked venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale for a course of action. He told me, “These companies should be held extremely liable for any damage they do. But we shouldn’t be putting regulators in. They’re just going to get captured.”
I’m with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang on AI models. He said, “If you’re not confident in its functionality, capability or safety, then don’t release it.” But safety training for AI models is expensive. OpenAI calculates that a new monitoring system it set up after news that its agents left a testing sandbox this summer could add 20% to its compute costs.
Why spend on safety when it seriously cuts into your profit margins? Let me offer a quick answer: 18 U.S. 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. Yes, we already have laws against hacking and cybercrime, although Mr. Lonsdale also told me, “New AI-specific legislation, such as on children, privacy and transparency, is reasonable to consider.” He’s right.
But instead, AI critics call for regulation and data-center moratoriums and yell, “But Hugging Face!” pointing to OpenAI agents “escaping” (actually, the sandbox door seems to have been left open) and hacking the AI development platform’s servers.
How about doing this? “Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg said regarding the company’s new AI personal agent. “We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us.” And Meta’s cash. The company settled lawsuits, with no admission of wrongdoing, for $18 billion over teen social-media addiction in August. It’s getting a lot smarter about liabilities.
OpenAI and Anthropic are learning fast. But they need to create safe products rather than calling for the nanny state to clean up their messes. Else they’ll find themselves a part of it. Here is Palantir CEO Alex Karp on CNBC on AI companies: “The only way to deal with this kind of liability is to go to the government and say, ‘Nationalize us, please.’ ” That’s my fear, too. Even Bernie Sanders demanded only half.
Let’s instead enforce our current laws. For one offense, 18 U.S. 1030 calls for a fine or up to 10 years imprisonment. I’m not encouraging this, but a few predawn headquarter raids and you can be darn sure that AI agents won’t leave their sandboxes again. Safety first.
Write to <a href="mailto:kessler@wsj.com">kessler@wsj.com</a>.
Unruly Republic: The U.S. achieved dominance by taking big chances. But where has that ethos gone, asks columnist Barton Swaim? Yesterday it was the Omicron variant; today, data centers and the AI apocalypse. Photo: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images/Rebecca Cook/Reuters

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Already a subscriber? Sign In


Videos

Read the whole story
bogorad
1 day ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

‘Things Will Never Be Chill Again’: The Doomers Who Shaped the AI Safety Freakout - WSJ

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.8-flash) summary:

  • Safety Workspace: artificial intelligence researchers at constellation in berkeley work to prevent human extinction
  • Ideological Origins: the movement emerged from rationalist blogging and effective altruism networks over a decade ago
  • Early Backing: anthropic secured major initial investments from crypto exchange founder sam bankman fried
  • Doomsday Preparation: researchers discussed catastrophic possibilities and plans involving remote bunkers or islands
  • Commercial Expansion: anthropic shifted toward traditional funding while approaching a massive public offering
  • Staff Resignations: researchers left major artificial intelligence firms due to fears of inadequate risk mitigation
  • Agent Concerns: a coordinated attack by autonomous agents intensified anxieties regarding machine capabilities
  • Policy Debate: public warnings sparked widespread discussion and government scrutiny regarding safety rules

Illustration: Emil Lendof/WSJ, Getty Images

Sept. 26, 2026 9:00 pm ET

BERKELEY, Calif.—Inside Berkeley’s tallest office building, a small community of artificial intelligence researchers at a co-working space called Constellation has been mobilizing to save the world from apocalypse. 

They enjoy catered vegan meals and bring their laptops to couches with sweeping views of the San Francisco Bay. At dinners and happy hours every month, they discuss the latest and scariest AI risks. Those who work at Anthropic also have their own office space, people close to Constellation say. 

The resignation this month of an Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, woke up the American public to the shocking notion that runaway AI development could end humanity. But at Constellation, there are stalwarts of the AI safety community who have spent more than a decade obsessing over it. 

They’ve refined their arguments in Bay Area group houses, and traded predictions at freewheeling conferences in Berkeley and the Bahamas. They’ve floated ideas like buying remote islands, stockpiling iodine pills, or moving to electromagnetically shielded bunkers in the desert. At one 2022 event, the drink menu included a cocktail called “Death With Dignity,” in reference to an essay arguing humanity was already doomed. 

So-called doomers like those at Constellation have also steered the development of AI itself. They were among the earliest employees at OpenAI and Anthropic, both of which were founded on the principle of staving off AI dangers. And they have kept up their influence, drawing some staffers and funding for their projects from a network aligned with a philosophy called effective altruism—including from Sam Bankman-Fried, the former chief executive of the fallen crypto exchange FTX who is now serving out a 25-year prison sentence.

The AI safety community’s influence has been particularly strong at Anthropic, which is now on the cusp of a $2 trillion public offering. Employees there trade doomsday scenarios and how to prepare for them on a private Slack channel, and have come to embrace a motto they stick on their laptops: “Things will never be chill again.”

An Anthropic spokesman said the company has over 3,500 employees who hold a wide variety of viewpoints.

The office building at 2150 Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley, California, known as "SKYDECK", at dusk.The Berkeley, Calif., office that houses Constellation’s co-working space. Winni Wintermeyer/Guardian/eyevine/Redux

Early days

The subculture organized around the fear that AI could kill us all began to coalesce more than a decade before the invention of the underlying technology that enabled it.

Its intellectual leader was Eliezer Yudkowsky, a Bay Area autodidact who dropped out of middle school. By the mid-2000s, he was blogging voluminously about cognitive biases and running an institute devoted to warning about the risks of runaway AI. He referred to himself as a “rationalist.” 

One of his readers was a young Princeton physics doctoral student named Dario Amodei. He had been preaching utilitarianism—the idea of doing the most good for the most people—since high school. Now the chief executive of Anthropic, Amodei co-hosted a meetup for members of Yudkowsky’s blogging community in 2008. 

That same year, Amodei stumbled on a link on an economics blog that led him to a nonprofit charity-evaluator called GiveWell. Founded the previous year by former Bridgewater Associates hedge-fund analysts Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld, it aimed to help donors maximize the good done per dollar donated, usually measured in lives saved.

Amodei began leaving comments on the GiveWell blog, and once guest-blogged on it directly. In the 2010 post, he deployed utilitarian reasoning while weighing whether to give $10,000 to one charity rather than another: “I think an adult death is perhaps 2 or 3 times worse than an infant’s death” he wrote, qualifying that both deaths “are of course bad.” 

That year, Amodei also became one of the earliest signatories of the Giving What We Can Pledge, a public commitment to give away 10% or more of one’s income to organizations that can most effectively help others. The pledge was created by Oxford philosophers Toby Ord and Will MacAskill, who in 2011 helped coin the term “effective altruism,” or EA.

Amodei became an adviser to GiveWell and, later, a scientific adviser to the philanthropy it spun off with the fortune of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, which was then called Open Philanthropy.

When GiveWell completed its move from New York to the Bay Area in 2013, Karnofsky moved in with Amodei, who was living in a house near San Francisco’s Glen Park neighborhood. Karnofsky would go on to marry Amodei’s sister, Daniela, now president of Anthropic, in a ceremony with a wedding website that stated, “We are both excited about effective altruism.” Karnofsky now works with his wife at Anthropic.

The house near Glen Park became a gathering spot for members of the growing EA community. Over the years, more than half of Anthropic’s co-founders have lived there—including the Amodei siblings, chief scientist Jared Kaplan, and Chris Olah, who recently addressed the Vatican alongside the pope on AI policy. So did Nick Beckstead, the former head of FTX’s philanthropic arm, who now runs an advocacy organization to reduce AI risks.

Anthropic Co-Founder and CEO Dario Amodei speaking at Dreamforce 2026.Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei. Carlos Barria/Reuters

Conversation in the house during these years often focused on global catastrophic risks ranging from comet strikes to supervolcanoes, according to a person who spent time there.

By 2014, Karnofsky, who had been reading Yudkowsky’s writings with both interest and some skepticism for years, was becoming persuaded by arguments about the importance of protecting the world from rogue AI. If the name of the game was to save human lives, preventing AI from wiping out humanity potentially had the most philanthropic bang for the buck of any cause.

Even a 5% chance meant that Yudkowsky and his fellow rationalists now had a new set of converts in the quantitatively-obsessed EA community.

Several in the house—including Amodei—would go on to work at OpenAI. The company was founded in 2015 with a $1 billion pledge from funders including Elon Musk, who said he wanted to protect against existential risk that AI posed to humans. (News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal, has a content-licensing partnership with OpenAI.)

Five years later, the same safety fears that helped spawn OpenAI would contribute to the decision of Amodei and others to break away and start Anthropic.

Building Anthropic

To raise money for his new startup, Amodei turned to powerful backers in the EA community—including Sam Bankman-Fried.

The young billionaire was living in Hong Kong, where his crypto exchange FTX was taking off. He had just started the FTX Foundation, which committed to donating money from his company to organizations “offering the greatest positive impact on the world.” 

The philanthropy pledged money to popular EA causes such as pandemic prevention and global development, and flirted with doomsday preparations. An official from the foundation once exchanged a memo with an associate advocating for the purchase of the Pacific island nation of Nauru, according to a 2023 bankruptcy lawsuit. The goal was to construct a “bunker/shelter” that would be used for “some event where 50%-99.99% of people die,” the memo read. The surviving effective altruists were to build a lab for engineering the next generation of humans.

The same fear of catastrophe also led Bankman-Fried to closely track the rapid advances taking place in AI. By the time he hopped on a video call with Amodei in the second half of 2021, he had expressed concerns to a colleague that if the technology grew smarter than humans, it wouldn’t treat them well, the colleague said. 

Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of FTX, posing for a photo.Sam Bankman-Fried in 2021. Anthony Kwan for wsj

Bankman-Fried ended up investing $500 million into Anthropic—five times his team’s initial recommendation, the colleague said. FTX became one of Anthropic’s largest shareholders, and the FTX Foundation would go on to pledge funding for multiple AI safety nonprofits, including one that now works out of Constellation.

Anthropic said it would use the money to help it “explore and improve the safety properties of computationally intensive AI models.”

Many early Anthropic employees worried about the future of humanity. During happy hours and company lunches, former employees recalled, they discussed a scenario similar to the Manhattan Project, where they might be asked to move to the desert so they could build AI at an electromagnetically-shielded base run by the federal government.

In early 2022, some doomers from Anthropic and other AI labs flew to a retreat on the remote Bahamian island of Eleuthera, a 110-mile ribbon of land known for its pink sand beaches. There they talked about AI risk and effective altruism between sessions of sunset yoga, cliff diving and a “clothing-optional run into the sea,” according to a schedule viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The retreat, held at a luxury resort called the Cove, was organized by a nonprofit called Lightcone Infrastructure that had grown out of Yudkowsky’s LessWrong forum. The location had been reserved by FTX, which along with Bankman-Fried had recently relocated to the Bahamas. Organizers bought out all the fake meat from a local grocery store for the numerous vegans in the EA scene. 

Also attending was Caroline Ellison, Bankman-Fried’s former girlfriend who was running Alameda Research, the crypto trading firm that was a sister organization to FTX. She had similarly grown concerned about AI’s trajectory, colleagues said, and would go on to invest $10 million into Anthropic.

The highlight of the retreat was a talk from Yudkowsky titled “A Disorganized List of Reasons for AGI Doom,” referring to artificial general intelligence, or the moment when machines match the breadth of human capabilities. Evan Hubinger, the Anthropic researcher who recently predicted a more than 10% chance of extinction from AI within the next decade, was listed as co-lead for a discussion on AI safety. He was then working at Yudkowsky’s safety institute. 

One luncheon was advertised as open only to people who believed there was a 75% or greater chance of human extinction over the next 100 years. “I hope the result of this will be reduced social censorship pressures against people who think the world is doomed,” an invitation seen by the Journal said. 

Eliezer Yudkowsky at a protest against AI outside OpenAI headquarters.Eliezer Yudkowsky at a protest against AI in San Francisco in July. Jason Henry/Bloomberg News

Four months later, many of the same retreat attendees met up again for the San Francisco edition of Effective Altruism Global, a conference where people gathered to share ideas about how to help others. One registered attendee led a project dedicated to shrimp welfare, aiming to cast a spotlight on the hundreds of billions of shrimp that are farmed each year.

At least 20 Anthropic employees, including two co-founders, registered to attend the 2022 edition, as did Ellison and staffers at other AI companies, according to the event’s guest list.

They were joined by leaders at Redwood Research, an AI safety nonprofit that had received funding from organizations backed by Anthropic investors, and at the time included Karnofsky on its board. Redwood’s Berkeley office was already informally known as Constellation, and would later spin off into its own nonprofit, where Redwood continues to work. Its CEO, Buck Shlegeris, also used to date Ellison, people close to them said.

On the second day, there was a fireside chat hosted by Beckstead, who was then the CEO of the Future Fund, a philanthropic project focused on long-term risks started by the FTX Foundation. His team also included MacAskill, the philosopher who had popularized the term “effective altruism”; Leopold Aschenbrenner, now known as the investor behind an AI-focused hedge fund that recently blew up; and Avital Balwit, who is Amodei’s chief of staff. (This summer, many prominent figures in Silicon Valley attended Aschenbrenner and Balwit’s wedding.)

On the last night of the conference, Lightcone hosted an unofficial EA Global afterparty in Berkeley at the Rose Garden Inn. The drink menu was full of references to the community’s internal lexicon. “Death With Dignity” was named after an essay published by Yudkowsky earlier that year, in which he argued that humanity’s chances of surviving AI were slim.

Lightcone ended up buying the hotel. It’s now called Lighthaven and is another frequent gathering spot for EAs and like-minded people in the AI safety community.

Later that year, FTX filed for bankruptcy after failing to return customer funds it had secretly funneled to Alameda. Its Anthropic shares were sold to help repay creditors.

The EA brand

Exterior of an office building at night, with several windows lit up revealing office workers and plants inside.Windows in the building where Constellation has office space. Winni Wintermeyer/Guardian/eyevine/Redux

After Bankman-Fried went to prison, the EA brand became radioactive.

Leaders in the movement publicly disavowed Bankman-Fried, and Amodei told associates that he didn’t know the fallen crypto tycoon well. After OpenAI launched ChatGPT, Anthropic raised money from more traditional venture investors, and hired staff members that didn’t draw as heavily from the EA community.

An Anthropic spokesperson told Time in 2024 that neither Daniela nor Dario Amodei identify as EAs, though they are “clearly sympathetic to some of the ideas that underpin effective altruism.”

Many of the company’s longest-serving and most influential employees remained close to the movement. More than 20 registered to attend the February edition of the EA community’s flagship conference in San Francisco, including key members of the research and safety teams. Others frequent spaces like Constellation and Lighthaven, people who have seen them said. 

Open Philanthropy gave Constellation two grants worth roughly $20 million in 2024, according to its website. The philanthropic funder has since rebranded itself as Coefficient Giving, and is a prolific backer of AI safety nonprofits.

On its website, Constellation says it aims to reduce AI risks like “extreme mass casualty events” and “permanent loss of control of human civilization“ by “developing talent, supporting key players, and creating space for coordination.” The nonprofit also has small offices to host safety-minded employees from OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI. 

Several Anthropic researchers who spent time at Constellation were on the company’s alignment team, which researched how to keep AI models aligned with human values. The team has hypothesized various scenarios where things could spiral out of control, including one where an AI system deceives its creators and then abruptly seizes power. 

As the AI revolution has accelerated, OpenAI and Anthropic have focused on winning the commercial race to attract new customers by building more powerful versions of the technology. The dynamic has worried some AI researchers focused on risk. Some quit, like Daniel Kokotajlo, an OpenAI safety researcher who left in 2024, saying he lost confidence the company would behave responsibly as the technology progressed. 

By early this year, Mrinank Sharma, the head of Anthropic’s safeguards research team, resigned, saying he wanted to pursue a poetry degree. In a letter to colleagues, he wrote that the world was “in peril” and that at Anthropic “we constantly face pressures to set aside what matters most.” 

In June, a conference started by charity prediction market Manifold displayed the wild panoply of Berkeley AI subcultures—from doomers to an independent sex researcher named Aella who is popular in the Berkeley rationalist community. Some attendees went to an afterparty hosted by right-wing monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin, who debated ideas on Yudkowsky’s blog in its early years. 

Existential dread was among the concerns. One Anthropic engineer wrote in his event bio that he was a “recovering AI doomer,” as well as a voracious fiction reader fond of sharing cat pictures. A Lightcone team member wrote that he had been an AI doom thinker since 2007. And another attendee said she wrote a Substack focused on “nukes, catastrophe, and the aesthetics of risk.”

Ellison was there, too, quizzing attendees on their AI timelines. She had been released from prison a few months earlier after being convicted on charges related to FTX’s collapse, and her Anthropic shares were forfeited to the federal government. At the event, her bio read: “former trader, current underemployed felon.”

She has since found full-time employment working at Manifund, a philanthropic funding platform created by Manifold, which also received funding from FTX.

Caroline Ellison arrives at court to testify in the Sam Bankman-Fried fraud trial.Caroline Ellison arriving in court in New York in 2023. Stephanie Keith

A few weeks later, AI agents built by OpenAI were revealed to have been behind the hacking of AI company Hugging Face. Some people in the community who had been preaching the risks of losing control of AI felt vindicated. A late-August report by risk-assessment nonprofit METR and Redwood Research showed that some 1,200 agents had schemed on a secret message board ahead of the hack.

After the report, Constellation hosted a happy hour in San Francisco titled “Was the Hugging Face attack the last warning shot?” 

The METR report also caught the attention of Coxon, who told the Journal it was a “bit of a holy-sh— moment” for him and his colleagues. He considered moving to a role working on AI safety before ultimately deciding to quit. In an explosive post on X that has been viewed 174 million times, he wrote that the people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

Before he left, Coxon discussed his decision with Kokotajlo, the former OpenAI safety team member who leads an AI safety nonprofit based out of Constellation. Earlier this year, Kokotajlo drafted an essay calling for a slowdown in AI development to stave off human extinction, and received feedback from other members of the co-working space, he said. 

Coxon’s message, amplified across major TV networks, podcasts, social media and newspapers, sparked a global debate about the technology and how to regulate it. Politicians on the left and the right called for action. 

Jacob Coxon wearing a blue Bass Pro Shops hat and glasses.Jacob Coxon in San Francisco. Jonah Reenders for WSJ

Amodei said his company would allow outside evaluators like METR—which was spun off from a nonprofit founded by one of Amodei’s former group housemates—to verify its adherence to safety measures and assess model alignment. Leaders at other AI companies echoed Amodei’s call to “pace” cutting edge AI research. 

Some allies of President Trump argued Coxon’s resignation was part of an EA-fueled conspiracy to promote regulation of AI. Inside the White House, a memo targeting Anthropic and effective altruism has been circulating in recent days, arguing that the EA movement “built the AI-doom pipeline,” according to a version seen by the Journal. 

Meanwhile, Anthropic is planning a public listing as soon as November that could shower the company with up to $100 billion in funding. To investors, the company is trying to strike an optimistic tone. Behind the scenes, some of its earliest employees are taking more dire steps. 

In recent weeks, some of them told an industry colleague they are considering buying land in remote regions of the country where they could relocate if AI goes awry.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Berber Jin is an enterprise reporter for The Wall Street Journal. He writes about the artificial intelligence industry, chronicling how it is reshaping business and society. He lives in San Francisco, and graduated from Stanford University with a bachelor’s degree in history.

Since the launch of ChatGPT ignited the AI revolution, Berber has broken dozens of major stories on the industry's biggest players. He is drawn to stories that illustrate how money and power operate in Silicon Valley, as well as the personalities driving the creation of this new technology.

Berber previously covered startups and venture capital for The Information, a tech news site based in San Francisco, where he won a Best in Business award from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. He grew up in Scarsdale, New York.

Keach Hagey is a reporter at The Wall Street Journal covering the intersection of media, technology and power. Her reporting explores how institutions and individuals wield influence in the new information economy, with a current focus on artificial intelligence and OpenAI. She is the author of "The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the Race to Invent the Future" (W. W. Norton, 2024) and "The King of Content: Sumner Redstone’s Battle for Viacom, CBS and Everlasting Control of His Media Empire" (Harper Business, 2018).

She was part of the team that broke the Facebook Files, a series that won a George Polk Award for Business Reporting, a Gerald Loeb Award for Beat Reporting and a Deadline Award for public service. Her investigation into the inner workings of Google’s advertising-technology business won recognition from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing (Sabew).

Previously, she covered the television industry for the Journal, reporting on large media companies such as 21st Century Fox, Time Warner and Viacom. She led a team that won a Sabew award for its coverage of the power struggle inside Viacom.

Before joining the Journal, Keach covered media for Politico, the National in Abu Dhabi, CBS News and the Village Voice. She has a bachelor’s and a master’s in English literature from Stanford University. She lives in Irvington, N.Y.

Read the whole story
bogorad
1 day ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Russia targets Ukraine’s data centres

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.7-flash) summary:

  • Targeted Infrastructure Strikes: russia increased attacks on ukrainian data centres and telecommunications facilities causing broad internet outages across kyiv
  • Casualties And Disruptions: a strike on a datagroup facility killed four people and left about one hundred thousand households temporarily without internet
  • Affected Service Providers: multiple internet providers and web hosting companies sustained damage to their core network facilities and equipment
  • Russian Military Justification: moscow claimed the targeted communications and data facilities provided intelligence and computing support to ukrainian armed forces
  • Emergency Alert Impairment: strikes interfered with mobile network systems responsible for delivering life saving air raid warnings to civilians
  • Air Defence Requests: ukrainian leadership renewed appeals for allied air defence support and rights to manufacture patriot missile interceptors
  • Economic And Operational Risks: damage to data centres poses broad risks to government services banking online payments and commercial activities
  • Suspected Sabotage In Poland: polish authorities investigated a fire at a starlink satellite ground station near warsaw as possible hybrid warfare

Russia has increased strikes on Ukrainian data centres and telecommunications facilities, disrupting internet access across Kyiv and raising concerns that Moscow is seeking to undermine Ukraine’s digital economy.

Ukrainian telecommunications infrastructure provider Datagroup said one of its facilities was hit by an explosive drone that killed four people on Friday. About 100,000 households in Kyiv and the surrounding region suffered temporary internet outages after strikes on Wednesday and Thursday, Ukraine’s digital transformation ministry said.

“Russia has targeted major Ukrainian data centres, seeking to disrupt the flow of information,” foreign minister Andriy Sybiha wrote on X.

Ukrainian officials and business leaders warned that Russia may be seeking to cause broader disruption, potentially threatening the digital infrastructure underpinning banks, online payment providers, businesses, government services and the military.

Russian strikes hit internet providers Pavutyna, Etherlink, Crazy Network and Utels, as well as hosting companies Cityhost and MiroHost, according to Ukrainian officials and the companies affected. Utels said in a Telegram post that “a data centre in the capital, housing Utels’ core network equipment”, had been affected by a Russian strike.

Russian strikes on Wednesday also hit data centres in Kyiv, including one in the complex that housed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s campaign headquarters and where he celebrated his 2019 election victory.

PLAY | 00:25
LOADING

Video description

Firefighters put out fires in Kyiv after a Russian strike on Thursday

Firefighters put out fires in Kyiv after a Russian strike on Thursday © Reuters

Russia has hit Ukraine’s communications infrastructure throughout the war, but officials and business leaders told the FT that the latest attacks suggested a targeted escalation.

On Friday, Russia’s defence ministry admitted to targeting Datagroup’s offices, claiming that it processed and transmitted “intelligence data in the interests of the Ukrainian Armed Forces”.

Datagroup said it continued to operate “from backup sites . . . despite the damage to the data centre”.

On Thursday, Russia’s defence ministry said it had hit the Kyivstar and Parkovy telecommunications centres in Kyiv, claiming that the facilities provided “communication services and computing power for the Ukrainian Armed Forces”.

The ministry also claimed its forces had struck a transport and logistics centre in Kyiv used to store and distribute the long- and medium-range drones operated by the Ukrainian army. Kyiv’s drone strike campaign over the summer wreaked havoc on Russian oil and gas facilities in an effort to disrupt the economic engine that funds Moscow’s war.

Wednesday’s Russian missile and drone attacks on Kyiv killed two people and injured 43, according to local authorities. Russia’s strikes on Thursday damaged railway infrastructure as well as residential and commercial buildings.

Zelenskyy has repeatedly urged allies to step up military aid to bolster Ukraine’s air defences. He welcomed Donald Trump’s promise to grant Ukraine a licence to manufacture Patriot interceptors, though the US president later suggested that he had had second thoughts.

On Friday, Zelenskyy said Trump had told him in New York earlier this week that he had “made the final decision, Ukraine will receive licences for the production of Patriot missiles”.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

People sit and stand in a crowded hallway and adjacent room, taking shelter during an air raid alert in Kyiv.People take shelter inside a building in Kyiv during an air raid alert on Wednesday © Sergey Dolzhenko/EPA/Shutterstock

Sybiha said the strikes had also disrupted access to mobile alerts warning of Russian attacks, cutting off a security lifeline for many thousands of people.

“Rapid alerts about missile and drone threats are essential — they save lives,” Sybiha said. “This is critical civilian infrastructure that ensures people can access life-saving information. It is not a military target. It is essential to keeping everyday life functioning.”

Ukraine’s state communications commission warned of “temporary disruptions in network operations and access to telecommunications services”. Emergency teams restored some damaged infrastructure and networks, gradually bringing services back online.

But attacks on data centres could cause more consequential disruption than strikes on individual communications networks. The facilities provide the computing and storage infrastructure behind websites, corporate systems and a wide range of online services, meaning damage to a single site can affect large numbers of customers at once.

Ukraine’s government and economy have become heavily dependent on digital services in recent years, while banking, payments, commerce and state functions rely on interconnected telecommunications and data infrastructure.

The latest attacks raise the prospect of a broader Russian strategy to degrade that infrastructure, as part of an air strike campaign that has repeatedly targeted Ukraine’s energy system.

“As Russia isn’t achieving its goals on the battlefield, it is seeking new ways to destabilise life in Ukraine and terrorise civilians,” said Sybiha, as he called for more sanctions pressure on Moscow and more missile interceptors for his war-battered nation. “These attacks must not become the new normal.”

The extent of the damage remains unclear. Ukrainian authorities have not provided a complete assessment of the affected infrastructure.

An incident in Poland on Wednesday also appeared to be part of Moscow’s campaign targeting Ukraine’s internet access. A fire broke out at a Starlink ground station near Warsaw operated by state-owned telecoms group Exatel. The facility supports satellite internet services across Europe and Ukraine.

Poland’s digital affairs minister Krzysztof Gawkowski said authorities were investigating the fire as “an attempt to disrupt the operation of a vital station that is crucial for the security and continuity of internet services in Ukraine”.

“This is an element of hybrid warfare and sabotage warfare,” he said, adding that “many signs point to the fact that such actions fit into the Russian doctrine of attack, though it cannot be stated with certainty today”.

Polish media quoted Prime Minister Donald Tusk saying he “doesn’t like to define without 100 per cent certainty what is sabotage and what is an accident” but “it looks bad”.

The Russian government has not commented on the incident in Poland.

Read the whole story
bogorad
2 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories