Strategic Initiatives
12487 stories
·
45 followers

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
34 minutes 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
12 hours 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
23 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Trauma Is Apparently Contagious

1 Share
  • Expanding Definition of Trauma: “Secondary traumatic stress” and “vicarious trauma” describe distress experienced by people who hear about or work with others’ traumatic experiences, extending trauma beyond direct exposure.
  • Growing Professional Scope: The concept now applies to therapists, teachers, journalists, nurses, social workers, and the broader public, with research and institutional attention increasing sharply.
  • Burnout Versus Trauma: Occupational stress and burnout have long contributed to turnover in demanding, poorly paid jobs, but newer terminology increasingly characterizes these conditions as trauma-related injury.
  • Questions About Evidence: Popular claims that trauma causes lasting biological changes have faced criticism over weak causal evidence and inconsistent replication, while ACE scores were not designed to predict individual risk or diagnose patients.
  • Impact on Mental-Health Care: Treating exposure to difficult patients as a potential threat to clinicians’ well-being could further discourage mental-health workers from serving severely ill patients amid an existing workforce shortage.
  • Role of Interpretation: Evidence from a study of police officers, most of whom reported low secondary traumatic stress despite frequent exposure to violence, indicates that personal and professional interpretations may influence distress as much as exposure itself.
  • Trauma by Transmission: The idea has been extended from patients to therapists and supervisors, raising concerns that an unlimited chain of “tertiary trauma” could encourage avoidance of people seeking help.



There is no question that working with traumatized patients can be difficult and emotionally demanding. But when did the strain of caring for people who have experienced trauma become a form of trauma itself? Increasingly, that’s how researchers and mental-health organizations describe it, using labels such as “secondary traumatic stress” and “vicarious trauma.”

The terminology grew out of the trauma boom that swept psychology during the 1980s and 1990s, when the meaning of trauma rapidly expanded. Psychologist Nick Haslam described this broader tendency for harm-related concepts to widen over time as “concept creep.” In the case of trauma, he documented how the idea migrated from physical injury to psychological injury, then from extraordinary events toward more ordinary adversity, and finally from events experienced directly to those suffered by other people.

Once trauma no longer required direct exposure, it became possible to describe the person hearing about another’s trauma as traumatized, too. In that context, psychologists Lisa McCann and Laurie Anne Pearlman proposed the term “vicarious traumatization” in 1990 to describe changes in therapists who repeatedly encountered clients’ graphic stories of pain and stress.

From there, the number of people considered susceptible to secondary trauma expanded, and the concept has been invoked with increasing frequency. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network, a federally funded organization, now describes secondary traumatic stress as a “common occupational hazard” for professionals who work with traumatized children and warns that listening to their stories can compromise workers’ health and professional functioning.

The concept has also spread well beyond psychotherapists. Teachers can acquire secondary trauma from students. Journalists can experience vicarious trauma from reporting on suffering. In 2023, Time announced that “the whole world” was at risk of compassion fatigue because wars, mass shootings, disasters, and social media continually expose ordinary people to other people’s misery.

Academic interest has risen as well. When I restricted Google Scholar results for “secondary traumatic stress” to individual publication years, it returned about 300 results for 2004, 500 for 2010, 1,100 for 2015, 2,900 for 2020, and 4,800 for 2024. The counts are approximate and should not be treated as precise publication totals, but they show how rapidly the concept has grown from relative obscurity to a much larger research literature.

I started paying closer attention to secondary traumatic stress because of another trend I had been reporting on: the national behavioral-health workforce shortage. In a forthcoming essay for City Journal, I examine the movement of mental-health clinicians out of public and institutional settings that serve the sickest psychiatric patients and into private practice and telehealth, where they have more control over their caseloads and generally treat less acute cases.

Burnout is commonly cited as a reason for this shift. In a 2026 survey of private-practice clinicians who had previously worked in public mental-health settings, 68 percent said burnout and stress from overwork influenced their decision to leave. But stressful, poorly paid, difficult-to-staff jobs have always had high turnover. What is newer is the tendency to interpret occupational stress through the language of trauma. Earlier this year, the Washington Post suggested that problems among teachers commonly attributed to burnout may instead be caused by secondary traumatic stress.

Calling it trauma gives the experience a much more serious meaning. Burnout means the job is wearing you down. Trauma suggests injury, and the word has become increasingly tied to claims of lasting changes in the brain and body.

Few books did more to popularize this view than Bessel van der Kolk’s The Body Keeps the Score. Its claims about trauma producing enduring changes in the brain and body have become enormously influential, despite a recent critique in the journal BJPsych Bulletin finding that many of its neurobiological claims rely on cross-sectional research incapable of establishing causation and on findings that have not consistently replicated.

That view has also shaped the way Adverse Childhood Experiences, or ACEs—a commonly used framework that ostensibly measures childhood trauma—are now understood and used. The original ACE score was developed to study group-level associations between childhood adversity and later health outcomes. Today, it is often used to screen individual patients and is commonly tied to the theory of “toxic stress,” which holds that repeated adversity can become “biologically embedded” and produce lasting physiological changes. Yet Robert Anda, one of the original ACE researchers, has warned that the score cannot measure biological stress exposure, predict individual risk, or serve as a diagnostic tool.

Put these ideas together and the emotional demands of caring for challenging patients take on a much more ominous meaning. If exposure to other people’s trauma is itself treated as potentially harmful to the clinician, then difficult patients can be seen as a threat to a clinician’s own well-being. Combined with the existing shortage of clinicians in public and institutional settings, this raises the possibility that mental-health workers are becoming less tolerant of the very patients who are hardest to treat.

There is also reason to doubt that exposure alone explains who develops secondary traumatic stress. Research on secondary traumatic stress is concentrated heavily in nursing, social work, counseling, and education—all professions dominated by women. By comparison, policing is a male-dominated profession whose members routinely deal with murder victims, fatal accidents, abused children, and people who have just experienced violent crimes. Yet a study of 235 police officers who worked with trauma victims found remarkably little secondary traumatic stress, with 90 percent scoring in the low range.

Perhaps the way workers interpret the emotional demands of their jobs has something to do with whether they experience those demands as trauma. Despite generations of women fighting the presumption that they were emotionally unsuited to difficult occupations, the helping professions have developed a scientific vocabulary that can suggest that exposure to other people’s suffering is itself psychologically hazardous.

The theory becomes still harder to take seriously when followed to its logical conclusion. A traumatized patient can traumatize her therapist, who can then discuss the traumatized patient with a supervisor. I initially joked that psychology would eventually invent “tertiary trauma” for the supervisor, only to discover a 2015 dissertation titled “Counselor Supervisors’ Perceptions of Tertiary Trauma,” based on interviews with supervisors exposed to counselors’ accounts of their clients’ trauma.

“Tertiary trauma” remains an obscure psychological idea, which is probably for the best. But if a traumatic experience can be transmitted from patient to therapist and then from therapist to supervisor, there is no obvious answer for where the chain stops.

None of this means we should pretend that listening to gruesome stories is pleasant or that caring for severely disturbed people is easy. But if current trends continue, the safest way to avoid trauma may eventually be to avoid anyone who has encountered anyone who has ever experienced anything painful or miserable. It would almost be funny—but for the reality that the people most likely to be shunned would be those most desperate to be heard.

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
23 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Monzo in talks with Brazil’s Nubank about sale

1 Share

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

  • Acquisition Talks: nubank is in early discussions to buy monzo in a transaction valuing the company at between eight and ten billion pounds
  • Deal Structure: the proposed takeover would consist of a combination of cash and shares
  • Alternative Financing: the bank is considering selling a fifteen percent stake to private equity or opening a new venture funding round
  • Advisory Team: morgan stanley and technology specialist qatalyst are advising the firm on the process
  • Management Strategy: chief executive diana layfield shut united states operations to focus on expansion into ireland and spain
  • Stock Exchange Impact: a foreign sale would be a setback for the london stock exchange which sought a domestic listing
  • Financial Growth: the firm generated eighty seven million pounds in pre tax profits and one point seven billion pounds in revenue
  • Customer Reach: the company serves sixteen million users mostly in the united kingdom while rival revolut counts eighty million

A smartphone screen displays the Monzo logo, with multiple Monzo logos shown in the background.The takeover could value Monzo at between £8bn-£10bn © Reuters
Laith Al-Khalaf in London
Published11 minutes ago
0
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Monzo has been approached by Brazilian digital banking giant Nubank about a sale that would potentially value the UK fintech at up to £10bn.

London-based Monzo is in early-stage discussions about a tie-up with Nubank’s New York-listed parent, Nu Holdings, according to two people familiar with the matter.
One person added that any takeover would be through a mixture of cash and shares and would value Monzo at between £8bn-£10bn.
Another person added that the bank had also been in discussions with several private equity firms about selling a significant stake, up to 15 per cent, in the business to secure a cash injection to accelerate growth.
A third option would entail the group launching a more traditional venture capital-style fundraising round, where investors take smaller stakes in the business. 
Monzo’s previous secondary fundraising round in 2024 valued the group at £4.5bn.

Monzo is being advised by Morgan Stanley and the technology bank Qatalyst, according to one person familiar with the matter.

The discussions come at a crucial time for Monzo. Last year the bank’s big investors, including venture capital firms Accel and Iconiq, staged a rebellion following the surprise departure of chief executive TS Anil from the bank. The shareholders demanded the ousting of Monzo’s chair and greater investor representation on its board.

Since coming in as chief executive in February, Diana Layfield has closed Monzo’s US operations and focused on growth in Europe, launching operations in Ireland and Spain.
A sale to the São Paulo-based Nubank, which boasts a $65bn valuation and 140mn customers across the Americas, would mark the latest blow to the London Stock Exchange, which has long courted Monzo as a potential listing candidate.
The timing of Monzo’s potential initial public offering had been a point of contention among its investor base, with some shareholders cautioning against a rapid listing.

The 13-year-old Nubank, which is the largest fintech in Latin America, is also focused on international expansion and has secured an American banking licence.

Sky News first reported the discussions on Saturday morning. Monzo declined to comment.
Monzo was founded by Tom Blomfield in 2015, which was one of a crop of fintechs that hoped slick apps would lure young users away from traditional banks. Today, the group has 16mn customers, almost all of whom are in the UK.

Monzo generated £87.3mn in pre-tax profits in the fiscal year to March 2026, compared with £60.5mn the year before. Revenues jumped 39 per cent to £1.7bn over the period.

However, Monzo has often existed in the shadow of its bigger domestic rival Revolut, which has 80mn customers and operations in more than 40 countries.

Monzo’s chief executive is also attempting to diversify the group’s revenue streams by building out its lending portfolio and adding more features, including mobile phone e-sims.

Comments

Commenting is only available to readers with an FT subscription

Please login or subscribe to join the conversation.

Comment guidelines

Please keep comments respectful. Use plain English for our global readership and avoid using phrasing that could be misinterpreted as offensive. By commenting, you agree to abide by our community guidelines and these terms and conditions. We encourage you to report inappropriate comments.

Post a comment
Sort by
There are no comments yet. Why don't you write one?
Read the whole story
bogorad
1 day ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Every package is already installed

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