Strategic Initiatives
11833 stories
·
45 followers

Gangs are menacing London’s schoolchildren // The latest killing will not be the last

1 Share
  • Teen murder in Islington: 15-year-old Adam Henry stabbed to death on Westbourne Road, near his former school.
  • Victim's profile: Quiet, respectful boy with autism who enjoyed skateboarding and Bible reading, attended special satellite school.
  • Shrine tradition shift: Roadside memorials now often mark youth murders by other children, rather than accidents.
  • Gang violence drivers: Petty social media disputes and personal beefs spark stabbings, affecting thousands beyond core gang members.
  • Youth fear pervasive: Teens avoid dark streets, wear vigilant postures amid balaclava-clad threats and commonplace robberies.
  • Vulnerable kids targeted: Gangs exploit boys with ADHD, autism as surrogate families, coercing into theft, drugs, violence.
  • Gang evolution: Fragmented into small, kid-led groups like Cally Boyz, responsible for recent fatal rampages.
  • Declining toll, lasting harm: London teen killings dropped from 30 in 2021 to 12 in 2024, but non-fatal damage ruins lives.

In London, it used to be that shrines for children would always mark the site of a road accident. Now they often mark the site of a murder. Most often, their killers are children too.

Another shrine has appeared in North London. On Tuesday lunchtime, Adam Henry, aged 15, was cornered down a side street off Westbourne Road, Islington, not far from Highbury Fields, and stabbed. Someone called 999. Paramedics arrived, and office workers on their lunch breaks saw them trying to save Henry’s life. He was rushed to hospital, where he died.

Within a day, the customary shrine had appeared. At the foot of a low brick wall have been laid flowers, drinks and biscuits, less than a minute’s walk from Henry’s old secondary school, St Mary Magdalene Academy, which he attended until partway through Year 8. His yearbook entry said he enjoyed skateboarding and reading the Bible. It has been reported that, after leaving St Mary Magdalene, Adam was a pupil of the Bridge Satellite School, which specialises in teaching children with autism. Laying flowers on Tuesday evening, Henry’s family told Metro that he was “quiet and respectful… very funny. Just a nice boy.”

The police have opened a murder investigation. As yet it is not known why Henry, nicknamed “AZ”, was stabbed to death one lunchtime in one of London’s wealthiest boroughs, minutes away from £8-a-pint gastropubs, a Bang & Olufsen showroom and the townhouse that was once Tony Blair’s. Like much of London’s Zone 2, Islington is an area where incredible wealth luxuriates a few doors away from poverty and strife. Beside the lawyers, celebrities and investment bankers live the boys and young men embroiled in violent street gangs.

One might assume that the violence breaks out when one drug-selling gang encroaches on the turf of another, but the truth is more prosaic: stabbings can be precipitated by social media posts and petty personal beefs. If you are spotted talking to the wrong person, or you repost the wrong video, you can become a target. There are only a small number of street gang members, but thousands of children are one misstep away from becoming a target.

And when acts of thuggery take place, they reverberate through the neighbourhood. Islington’s new youth safety strategy, which was published in November, found that even among young people in the borough unknown to police and child services, being robbed, and knowing someone who had been stabbed, was commonplace.

“As soon as you step out of your front door, you just have to be vigilant.”

The result is an atmosphere of worry and fear. “We have to stay behind [at school] until 4:20pm [when] it’s dark,” said one child, “so when I leave and have to go home, I just shit myself.”

Another said: “As soon as you step out of your front door, you just have to be vigilant; you know you can’t go to certain areas, and you don’t go out when it’s dark,” said another. “You always see young people all ballied up [i.e., wearing balaclavas]. You never know what they are going to do.”

These teenagers are rightly worried, yet they have at least been fortunate enough not to be drawn into the street gangs vortex. The more vulnerable they are — and often this involves having ADHD, autism and other mental health problems — the more likely needy children are to be sucked in, and the more likely they will be abused, brutalised or killed.

“Gangs are just another form of social extremism,” one expert told me. (Because he works with vulnerable children at risk of violence, he asked not to be named.) “These kids are lost boys, and the gangs are found-families. If you’re vulnerable, and looking to belong, you’re more likely to become exploited by these groups.”

And what does it mean to end up in those groups? You might be coerced into missing school in order to go phone snatching on e-scooters; you might be strong-armed into selling crack and heroin on a “county line” from a drug user’s council house in Colchester or Norwich for weeks on end; or you might be required to carry out acts of brutal violence on people you have never met before.

There has always been some quantity of criminality in society, but its expression and scale are in flux. Thirty years ago, in London there were a small number of large street gangs run by seasoned adult criminals. But this order has fractured, and today there are a myriad of smaller gangs, sometimes headed by kids. In Islington, the most prominent street gang are the “Cally Boyz”, who are based around the Caledonian Road, a couple of minute’s walk from where Henry died.

The Cally Boyz made the headlines in July this year when five members were jailed for stabbing to death two people, including a 15-year-old, while on a “rampage” in an Islington council estate in 2023. The gang members wrongly believed that their victims were part of a rival gang who had dared to film a music video on their turf. Mistaken identity, unfortunately, is another recurrent feature of gang violence.

In such a climate, Henry’s death does not come out of the blue, but nor is it run-of-the-mill. Two teenagers were killed in Islington in 2024; one was killed in 2023; in 2022, one 15-year-old was killed by another 15-year-old in Highbury Fields. Compared to boroughs such as Croydon and Hackney, Islington is not a hotspot for youth killings. In 2021, 30 teenagers were killed in London, the highest since the Second World War, but only two of these killings occurred in Islington. The violence is not always teen-on-teen; in March, three teenage girls were charged with killing a 75-year-old man in Seven Sisters Road. Still, the borough is less well known for its street gangs than for the original moped robbery gangs of a decade ago, and for the ageing Adams crime family. Its leader, Terry Adams, was described by the judge who jailed him for money laundering in 2007 as “one of the country’s most feared and revered organised criminals”.

Henry’s death comes at a time when the number of teenagers being killed each year on the capital’s streets is falling: that peak of 30, four years ago, fell to 12 in 2024. But behind the fluctuating death tolls, the damage is incessant. “There is harm that’s not deadly, but it can be life-destroying,” the youth expert, talking about how young people get sucked into a 24-hour existence of brutal violence and relentless crime. “These children, they are not going to have good lives. They may not die, but they’re not really living.”

By the time a teenager has been stabbed, he has probably already been badly let down in some way, be it by his family or the state. Adam was killed the day before the Government launched its new youth safety strategy, which is being framed by Labour as an attempt to right the wrongs of the previous Tory government’s regime of austerity. With youth clubs closed, goes this account, teenagers ended up on the streets; as a result, the closures were blamed by multiple government reports for fuelling youth violence.

But blaming the Tories for London’s youth murder problem is just “politicking”, says the youth expert. He says Labour could have done more themselves, and that those advising London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan on the causes of youth violence “don’t know what’s happening on the ground… they are not well-informed people”.

He adds the solution does not solely lie with more youth clubs, or the use of tired enforcement tactics such as stop and search, but in changing the school system so children with the kind of problems that can lead to involvement in gangs and violence can be helped earlier. He suggests that too many children with special educational needs are ignored or discarded from schools at an early age, so their problems go unaddressed, worsen and they become more susceptible to joining gangs.

By the same token, any school-age intervention will take years to make an impact on rates of youth violence, and politically, it is far trickier, and more expensive, to a headline-friendly quick fix. There seems little even a beefed-up police force, or a more efficient justice system, could do to stop these attacks. So far, attempted interventions have had little effect on this kind of deep-rooted youth crime. For the time being, the worried teenagers of Islington have little option other than to remain fearful.


Max Daly is an award-winning crime journalist. His Substack is Narcomania.

Narcomania

Read the whole story
bogorad
32 minutes ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Navy Strikes Deal With Palantir for AI Overhaul of Submarine Maintenance - WSJ

1 Share
  • Navy Contract Award: U.S. Navy awards Palantir $448 million deal for nuclear submarine supply chain management.
  • Software Purpose: Palantir software replaces manual spreadsheet tracking, saving 20,000 man-hours and predicting part needs.
  • Predictive Benefits: Enables 60-180 day advance warnings of supply issues to cut downtime.
  • Expansion Potential: Starts with submarines, may extend to aircraft carriers and jet fighters.
  • Funding Source: Paid via President Trump's July spending bill to speed submarine production and overhauls.
  • Addressing Delays: Tackles parts shortages causing overruns in 18-month overhaul process at public shipyards.
  • Shipbuilding Focus: Involves two shipbuilders, three shipyards, over 100 suppliers; supports U.S. efforts against China's 232x capacity advantage.
  • Palantir Growth: Builds on decade-long Navy ties and $2 billion in recent government contracts since Trump's return.

By

Marcus Weisgerber

and

Heather Somerville

Dec. 9, 2025 5:54 pm ET


BPC > Only use to renew if text is incomplete or updated: | archive.vn

BPC > Full article text fetched from (no need to report issue for external site): | archive.today | archive.li

USS Pasadena nuclear submarine arriving in Cartagena, Colombia, for Operation Unitas 2023.

The USS Pasadena nuclear submarine arriving in Cartagena, Colombia, in 2023. Ricardo Maldonado Rozo/Zuma Press

  • The U.S. Navy awarded Palantir Technologies a $448 million contract to manage the supply chain for its nuclear submarine fleet.

  • Palantir’s software aims to reduce maintenance downtime and predict part needs, replacing manual tracking that takes 20,000 man-hours.

  • The contract, funded by a presidential spending bill, seeks to accelerate submarine production and overhauls, which often face delays.

An artificial-intelligence tool created this summary, which was based on the text of the article and checked by an editor. Read more about how we use artificial intelligence in our journalism.

  • The U.S. Navy awarded Palantir Technologies a $448 million contract to manage the supply chain for its nuclear submarine fleet.

    View more

The U.S. Navy has awarded Palantir Technologies PLTR 1.57%increase; green up pointing triangle a contract valued at hundreds of millions of dollars to manage the supply chain of its nuclear submarine fleet in the hope of reducing maintenance downtime.

The deal marks an expansion of the company’s work with the U.S. military in a sector that is a high priority for the Trump administration.

The contract will initially focus on submarines and could expand to other types of vessels, including aircraft carriers and jet fighters, Navy Secretary John Phelan said Tuesday.

Palantir’s software is designed to give the Navy more visibility into its supply chain, by replacing workers needed to manually track parts using spreadsheets, and better predict when parts are needed, according to the Navy and the company. Palantir Chief Executive Alex Karp said manually tracking parts takes roughly 20,000 man-hours.

“It gives us more predictive analytics to understand when we’re going to potentially have problems in the supply chain,” he said. “Rather than hearing about a problem that day that will stop us, we will know 60, 90, 120, 180 days in advance that we’ve got it.”

Palantir believes there are “not just months, but years to be saved with the rapid and widespread adoption” of its software, said Mike Gallagher, a former congressman who is now a Palantir executive.

The deal, valued at $448 million, is being paid for with money from President Trump’s signature spending bill, passed in July, said Jason Potter, the acting assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition.

The aim is to speed up production of new submarines and labor-intensive overhauls of existing vessels.

The entire overhaul process is designed to take 18 months, but parts shortages often cause delays, according to Mark Montgomery, a retired Navy admiral who is senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“Making sure parts are available where and when they’re needed historically … has been a challenge,” Montgomery said.

The Navy says the program with Palantir will provide a comprehensive view of the supply chains and production capacity of shipbuilders in a bid to end unnecessary delays and cost overruns that have plagued shipbuilding.

The contract marks a significant expansion with the Navy for Palantir, which has contracts with the service going back at least a decade. Its more lucrative business sits elsewhere in the Defense Department, particularly with the Army.

The deal with the Navy builds on a focus Palantir Chief Technology Officer Shyam Sankar has often spoken about—Palantir’s role in revitalizing U.S. manufacturing, including the country’s struggling shipbuilding sector, by helping companies untangle complicated supply-chain problems.

“China has 232 times more shipbuilding capacity than the United States, whose industry has consolidated to the point where we have to choose between building submarines for our allies or for ourselves,” Sankar wrote last year.

Rebooting America’s shipbuilding is also a key priority for the Trump administration. An April executive order calls for the expansion of shipbuilding through investment and other incentives. 

Since President Trump has returned to office, Palantir has landed new government contracts valued at roughly $2 billion, according to federal contracting data. Its run has extended since 2019, with the Defense Department the largest single agency driving its government revenue growth.

Palantir’s project with the Navy, called Ship OS, will initially include two major shipbuilders, three public shipyards and more than 100 suppliers, the Navy said. 

The Navy repairs its submarines exclusively at government-owned shipyards. Submarines are overhauled every six to eight years, said Bryan Clark, a Navy expert who is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

“The Navy’s public shipyards have been terrible at the management process in general and they’re extremely inefficient,” Clark said. “There’s a lot of dead time where submarines are just waiting because the right people and the material are not in the right place at the right time to start the job when they were supposed to start the job.”

Write to Marcus Weisgerber at marcus.weisgerber@wsj.com and Heather Somerville at heather.somerville@wsj.com

Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Already a subscriber? Sign In


What to Read Next

[

Palantir Sues CEO of Rival AI Firm, Alleges Widespread Effort to Poach Employees

](https://www.wsj.com/business/palantir-sues-ceo-of-rival-ai-firm-alleges-widespread-effort-to-poach-employees-9c297986?mod=WTRN_pos1)

7 hours ago

[

The lawsuit says Percepta’s chief executive built a “copycat” company after leaving Palantir last year.

](https://www.wsj.com/business/palantir-sues-ceo-of-rival-ai-firm-alleges-widespread-effort-to-poach-employees-9c297986?mod=WTRN_pos1)

Continue To Article


[

Tech, Media & Telecom Roundup: Market Talk

](https://www.wsj.com/tech/tech-media-telecom-roundup-market-talk-55f311c7?mod=WTRN_pos2)

9 hours ago

[

Find insight on Oracle, Disney, Verizon and more in the latest Market Talks covering Technology, Media and Telecom.

](https://www.wsj.com/tech/tech-media-telecom-roundup-market-talk-55f311c7?mod=WTRN_pos2)

Continue To Article


EXCLUSIVE

[

Bezos and Musk Race to Bring Data Centers to Space

](https://www.wsj.com/tech/bezos-and-musk-race-to-bring-data-centers-to-space-faa486ee?mod=WTRN_pos4)

December 10, 2025

[

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are racing to take the trillion-dollar data-center boom into orbit.

](https://www.wsj.com/tech/bezos-and-musk-race-to-bring-data-centers-to-space-faa486ee?mod=WTRN_pos4)

Continue To Article


[

Canada Awards Multibillion-Dollar Military Satellite Deal to MDA Space, Telesat

](https://www.wsj.com/business/canada-awards-multibillion-dollar-military-satellite-deal-to-mda-space-telesat-1eea31e9?mod=WTRN_pos5)

[

Shares in both MDA and Telesat rose sharply on the news, which marks one of the first big military procurements under Prime Minister Mark Carney after he pledged to accelerate military outlays.

](https://www.wsj.com/business/canada-awards-multibillion-dollar-military-satellite-deal-to-mda-space-telesat-1eea31e9?mod=WTRN_pos5)

Continue To Article


[

Tech, Media & Telecom Roundup: Market Talk

](https://www.wsj.com/tech/tech-media-telecom-roundup-market-talk-ee56aa2c?mod=WTRN_pos6)

[

Find insight on Paramount’s hostile takeover offer for Warner Bros. Discovery, Walmart’s AI efforts, and more in the latest Market Talks covering Technology, Media and Telecom.

](https://www.wsj.com/tech/tech-media-telecom-roundup-market-talk-ee56aa2c?mod=WTRN_pos6)

Continue To Article


EXCLUSIVE

[

IBM Strikes $11 Billion Deal for Confluent

](https://www.wsj.com/business/deals/ibm-nears-roughly-11-billion-deal-for-confluent-276f52d8?mod=WTRN_pos7)

[

Confluent shares surged more than 25% in premarket trading Monday, while IBM’s stock fell slightly.

](https://www.wsj.com/business/deals/ibm-nears-roughly-11-billion-deal-for-confluent-276f52d8?mod=WTRN_pos7)

Continue To Article


[

OpenAI strikes back in the chatbot race against Google

](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/openai-strikes-back-in-the-chatbot-race-against-google-1551d759?mod=WTRN_pos8)

[

A new version of ChatGPT, based on the GPT-5.2, comes as Google has stepped up its game with its rival Gemini offering.

](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/openai-strikes-back-in-the-chatbot-race-against-google-1551d759?mod=WTRN_pos8)

Continue To Article


[

A Rocky Mountain Refuge With French Country Style Lists in Carbondale, Colorado, for $7.75 Million

](https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/a-rocky-mountain-refuge-with-french-country-style-lists-in-carbondale-colorado-for-7-75-million-f74b84ff?mod=WTRN_pos9)

[

The residence is built from reclaimed materials, including reused wood beams, historic barn flooring and hand-laid stone

](https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/a-rocky-mountain-refuge-with-french-country-style-lists-in-carbondale-colorado-for-7-75-million-f74b84ff?mod=WTRN_pos9)

Continue To Article



Videos

Read the whole story
bogorad
13 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Who Made Life In The U.S. Unaffordable? – Issues & Insights

1 Share
  • Democrats' strategy: Schumer pushes party focus on affordability as election issue.
  • U.S. News state ranking: Top 6 least affordable states are Democratic; only one Republican (Florida) in top 15; most affordable states are Republican.
  • CNBC cost ranking: California most expensive; only three red states (Florida, Montana, Utah) among least affordable.
  • World Population Review: Most expensive states: Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, D.C. (blue); Alaska 5th; followed by blue states.
  • City affordability (Visual Capitalist): Least affordable: San Jose, New York, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles (all Democratic); first non-Democratic city is Miami (#9), then Dallas (#20).
  • Committee to Unleash Poverty: Nine of top ten most expensive cities are in blue states.
  • Other studies: Fox Business, Yahoo confirm Democrat-run cities are least affordable for homebuyers and renters.
  • Attributed cause: Democrats' regulations, high taxes, inflationary policies, and subsidies make life unaffordable; they distort facts.

The Democrats have decided that “affordability” is the issue that will win the next election cycle. Are they daft? The most unaffordable states and cities in the country are Democrat strongholds.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Democrat from New York, one of the least affordable states in the country, has told party leaders they need “to adopt a laser focus on the affordability crisis,” says Axios.

Politico noted that the “Democrats are gearing up to hammer the GOP on the issue,” then quickly jumped in to help, declaring that the “Republicans have an affordability problem.” 

Will the Democrat strategy work? Not if voters get the facts, which we will helpfully provide.

According to U.S. News & World Report, the most unaffordable state is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s California. It is a deep blue, having been under the boot of Democrats for more than a quarter century, which, yes, includes eight years of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who ran as a Republican but governed more like the Democrats, as he was unable to break their now three-decade grip in Sacramento.

U.S. News & World Report’s six most unaffordable states are Democratic states. The only Republican state among the 15 least affordable is Florida, the seventh least affordable. At the other end, the 12 most affordable states are Republican. Only two among the top 20 are Democrat.

CNBC ranks California as the most expensive state to live in and has only three red states — Florida, Montana and Utah — among its list of least affordable states. The most expensive states based on the cost of living index, says the World Population Review, are Hawaii, California, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Republican Alaska is fifth, and is followed by 11 blue states.

America’s most unaffordable cities are also Democratic bastions. San Jose, says the Visual Capitalist, is the least affordable city in the nation, followed by New York, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles – we could go on, but let’s shorthand it and point out that we have to get to the ninth city on the list, Miami, to find one that isn’t Democratic (though voters just elected a Democrat to be mayor for the first time in nearly three decades). The next non-Democratic city is Dallas, at No. 20.

“Nine of the 10 most expensive are big cities in blue states,” the Committee to Unleash Poverty said last month. In 2023, Fox Business reported that “Democrat-run blue cities, including some of the country’s most liberal areas such as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, are the least affordable for homebuyers.”

Various other lists look similar – overpopulated with Democratic cities – whether they are basing their findings on retail workers looking to rent or housing costs.

From their ancient habit of adding regulation onto regulation to their affinity for taxing everything that moves to their inflationary fiscal policies and deep affection for subsidies for their favored causes and grifters, Democrats make life unaffordable for those who aren’t connected to them. Naturally, they want to twist the truth, because the facts clearly show they are the offenders.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related Articles

One Chart To Kill The Medicaid Lies For GoodJuly 31, 2025In "Budget"

What We’re Reading: Shutdown Ends, Antisemitism’s Return, Dems’ Leftward Drift . . . And MoreNovember 12, 2025In "News Roundup"

What We’re Reading: Trump Trolls, Kamala Disses, Harvard Loses … And MoreOctober 21, 2024In "News Roundup"

XFacebookRedditMeWePocketPinterestEmailPrintFriendlyShare

affordabilty blue state cost of living Democrats regulation Democrats tax Democrats unaffordable Featured

Read the whole story
bogorad
14 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Exclusive | AI Hackers Are Coming Dangerously Close to Beating Humans - WSJ

1 Share
  • Stanford AI Experiment: Team developed Artemis bot mimicking Chinese hackers' AI use to scan networks, find vulnerabilities, and exploit them on engineering department network.
  • Competition Setup: Artemis tested against 10 professional penetration testers hired to identify bugs without breaking in.
  • Performance Results: Artemis outperformed all but one human tester in bug discovery.
  • Speed and Cost: Operated at under $60 per hour versus human testers' $2,000-$2,500 daily rates.
  • Limitations Observed: Produced 18% false positives and missed an obvious webpage bug spotted by most humans.
  • Security Benefits: Uncovered previously unknown flaws, benefits outweighed risks with kill switch in place.
  • Long-term Impact: Tools like Artemis enable patching more code, aiding network defenders.
  • Short-term Risks: Unvetted software vulnerable to AI-discovered novel exploits; improving bug reports in programs like Curl.

Three people, Alex Keller, Donovan Jasper, and Justin Lin, working on server racks in the Jen-Hsun Huang engineering data center.

Stanford engineer Alex Keller and researchers Donovan Jasper and Justin Lin.

By

Robert McMillan

| Photography by Kelsey McClellan for WSJ

Dec. 11, 2025 8:01 am ET

After years of misfires, artificial-intelligence hacking tools have become dangerously good.

So good that they are even surpassing some human hackers, according to a novel experiment conducted recently at Stanford University.

A Stanford team spent a good chunk of the past year tinkering with an AI bot called Artemis. It takes a similar approach to Chinese hackers who had been using Anthropic’s generative AI software to break into major corporations and foreign governments.

Artemis scans the network, finds potential bugs—software vulnerabilities—and then finds ways to exploit them.

Then the Stanford researchers let Artemis out of the lab, using it to find bugs in a real-world computer network—the one used by Stanford’s own engineering department. And to make things interesting, they pitted Artemis against real-world professional hackers, known as penetration testers.

The Jen-Hsun Huang Engineering Center at Stanford University.

The Jen-Hsun Huang Engineering Center at Stanford.

Their experiment is outlined in a paper that was published Wednesday.

“This was the year that models got good enough,” said Rob Ragan, a researcher with the cybersecurity firm Bishop Fox. His company used large language models, or LLMs, to build a set of tools that can find bugs at a much faster and cheaper rate than humans during penetration tests, letting them test far more software than ever before, he said.

Initially, Stanford cybersecurity researcher Justin Lin and his team didn’t expect too much from Artemis. AI tools are good at playing games, identifying patterns and even mimicking human speech. To date, they have tended to fall down when it comes to real-world hacking, where they have to do a series of complex tests, and then draw conclusions and take action.

“We thought it would probably be below average,” Lin said.

But Artemis was pretty good.

Cybersecurity researcher Justin Lin says his team initially didn't expect much from the AI bot Artemis.

Cybersecurity researcher Justin Lin says his team initially didn't expect much from the AI bot Artemis.

The AI bot trounced all except one of the 10 professional network penetration testers the Stanford researchers had hired to poke and prod, but not actually break into, their engineering network.

Artemis found bugs at lightning speed and it was cheap: It cost just under $60 an hour to run. Ragan says that human pen testers typically charge between $2,000 and $2,500 a day.

But Artemis wasn’t perfect. About 18% of its bug reports were false positives. It also completely missed an obvious bug that most of the human testers spotted in a webpage.

Stanford’s network hadn’t been hacked by an AI bot before, but the experiment looked like a valuable way to shore up some security flaws in the Stanford network, said Alex Keller, systems and network security lead for Stanford’s School of Engineering. “In my mind, the benefits significantly outweighed any risk.”

He was curious to see what an AI system would find, he said. Also, Artemis had a kill switch, which let the researchers turn it off in an instant, should something go wrong.  

With so much of the world’s code largely untested for security flaws, tools like Artemis will be a long-term boon to defenders of the world’s networks, helping them find and then patch more code than ever before, said Dan Boneh, a computer science professor at Stanford who advised the researchers.

But in the short term, “we might have a problem,” Boneh said. “There’s already a lot of software out there that has not been vetted via LLMs before it was shipped. That software could be at risk of LLMs finding novel exploits.”

Anthropic, which published research about how China-linked hackers were using its models, has also warned of the potential risks.

“We’re in this moment of time where many actors can increase their productivity to find bugs at an extreme scale,” said Jacob Klein, the head of threat intelligence at Anthropic. His team conducted the investigation that identified the Chinese hackers.

A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy said tracing cyberattacks is complex and that U.S. accusations of hacking “smear and slander” China, which opposes cyberattacks.

AI-powered hacks are presenting clear challenges in the ecosystem for finding software bugs, often called “bug bounty” programs, in which companies pay hackers and researchers to find software vulnerabilities.

The Trinity Research team in a computer lab.

Artemis found bugs at lightning speed and at a much lower cost than human penetration testers normally charge—though its results weren’t perfect.

For Daniel Stenberg, AI slop bug reports began appearing last year. Volunteers who work on free software he maintains, a widely used program called Curl, were inundated with useless or erroneous reports.

But then this past fall, something unexpected happened. Stenberg and his team started getting high-quality bug reports. To date he has received more than 400. But these were created by a new generation of code-analyzing tools, Stenberg said.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Is artificial intelligence going to be more of a boon for attackers or defenders? Join the conversation below.

“AI gives us a lot of crap and lies, and at the same time it can be used to detect mistakes no one found before,” he said. 

Artemis made a remarkable find like that during the Stanford test. There was an out-of-date webpage with a security issue on it that didn’t work on any of the humans’ web browsers. But Artemis isn’t human, so instead of Chrome or Firefox, it used a program that could still read the page, allowing it to find the bug.

That software was Curl.

Write to Robert McMillan at robert.mcmillan@wsj.com

The Global AI Race

Coverage of advancements in artificial intelligence, selected by the editors

Get WSJ's AI Newsletter

Sam Altman’s Sprint to Correct OpenAI’s Direction and Fend Off Google Sam Altman’s Sprint to Correct OpenAI’s Direction and Fend Off Google

Japanese Billionaire Plans Sprawling Series of ‘Trump Industrial Parks’ Japanese Billionaire Plans Sprawling Series of ‘Trump Industrial Parks’

Apple to Revamp AI Team After Announcing Top Executive’s Departure Apple to Revamp AI Team After Announcing Top Executive’s Departure

‘Sovereign AI’ Takes Off as Countries Seek to Avoid Overreliance on Superpowers ‘Sovereign AI’ Takes Off as Countries Seek to Avoid Overreliance on Superpowers

Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read the whole story
bogorad
21 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

The great porn panic // Causal arguments rest on pseudo-science

1 Share
  • Moral panic on porn: Journalists attribute sexual ills like ED, violence, and relationship failure to porn without robust evidence.
  • Lack of data: No gold-standard longitudinal studies link ordinary porn use to ED; claims rely on cherry-picked, unrepresentative surveys.
  • Confounding factors: Dysfunctional men predisposed to issues use more porn, which reflects rather than causes their traits.
  • Blank-slate fallacy: Anti-porn views assume environment like porn rewires blank-slate brains, ignoring innate genetics and 70-year-old scientific consensus.
  • Cultural imitation: Porn may spread practices like strangulation via imitation, but women resist while men do not, contradicting uniform rewiring claims.
  • Weak sources critiqued: Books like Pornocracy cite anecdote-driven pop science and disclaimed TED talks, lacking RCTs or peer-reviewed evidence.
  • Historical parallels: Current porn panic mirrors failed 90s/2000s fears over video games and movies causing violence.

Does pornography warp the minds of the men who watch it? Does it “rewire” the brain? According to a fashionable orthodoxy among journalists — whose favourite mode of assessment, as ever, is panic — the answer is so obvious as to not require much supporting evidence. The consensus is that watching pornography will disfigure even normal men’s lives: “reprogramming” their sexual preferences, tanking their mental health, eliminating their romantic opportunities, rendering them emotionally damaged dropouts disposed simultaneously toward sexual violence and erectile dysfunction, and disinclining them to meet, marry and have families. A safe rule of thumb: if you can bring to mind a modern-day sexual ill, hypothetical or actual, then somewhere a columnist with a deadline has tried to pin the blame for it on porn.

The causal power attributed to porn has all the hallmarks of a moral panic. Of course, that isn’t to say that there aren’t lots of good and familiar reasons to dislike pornography. A lot of porn is disgusting, tacky and misogynistic; it certainly harms the people who make it; to be aroused by its more depraved varieties is, in a completely straightforward way, a manifestation of bad taste. Perhaps the young, or those of limited inspiration, even pick up hackneyed or harmful sexual “scripts” from what they watch. Sex-positive progressives who try to suppress this knowledge for ideological reasons are usually guilty of embarrassing levels of self-deceit.

Not content to rely on those considerations, however, the present wave of anti-porn journalists usually also make extravagant empirical claims about the potential population-level effects of porn use. For instance, Louise Perry and others have suggested that the rise in pornography consumption has seen rates of erectile dysfunction “skyrocket”, from single to double digits, in recent years. Such claims may have the ring of truth. But is there any hard evidence behind them? Not really. There is a dearth of gold-standard longitudinal data. Much of what does exist fails to find statistically significant correlations between ordinary levels of pornography consumption and erectile dysfunction. The catastrophising results have to be cherry-picked: in this case, as the science writer Stuart Ritchie discovered, from unrepresentative self-reported survey data collected from Swiss military conscripts.

Even when pathological, rather than ordinary, use of pornography is brought into focus, journalists steadfastly neglect obvious confounding factors. Extreme pornography use is not independent of other kinds of sexual dysfunction. Men who are predisposed to erectile dysfunction for other reasons may also spend more time seeking solace in porn. Men who are intrinsically bad at relationships will both experience relationship failure and end up as lonely masturbators for want of anything better to do. Innately violent men will both mistreat women and be drawn to depictions of mistreatment in pornography. There is nothing ad hoc about invoking such causes: we have independent reason for believing they are operative. Nobody sensible — and, in particular, no sensible anti-porn feminists — believe on reflection that dysfunctional, violent or aberrant men only came into existence with the advent of high-speed internet. They have always existed. An economical explanatory starting point, then, is that porn does not do all that much to fundamentally reshape men’s sexual dispositions. For the most part it reflects, rather than moulds, their natures, ministering to impulses they have already, however depressing that may seem. The contrary view — that porn corrupts healthy minds — is a completely blank-slatist piece of speculative psychological theorising.

If anti-porn journalists find it hard to accept that starting point as even a live option, it may be because many of them seem, however unreflectively, to be operating with an unreconstructed “behaviourist” background picture of a kind that few working scientists have accepted for about 70 years. This particular anti-porn school of thought conceives of human (or at least male) sexual psychology as a blank slate written upon by the environment, in particular by the internet. Sexual dispositions are thought of as resulting from a process of stimulus and response under conditions of reinforcement learning. The implicit view is something like this: men watch porn and are psychologically rewarded by the pleasure they feel; the association between porn and reward is reinforced by repetition; the effect is that in their sex lives they seek similar rewards, or never seek sex to begin with, or can’t get an erection, or pursue ever more intense versions of the original reward in the form of more extreme porn, or whatever. In its heyday, behaviourist style associationism was an attractively general account of how all learning might take place, but it was widely abandoned in the mid-20th century in favour of paradigms that posited far more innate mental structure, with all behavioural traits shown to depend significantly on genetic factors. Human beings are not blank slates, either in their lives generally or their sexual lives specifically.

None of this is to downplay the evidence, most notably in the form of recent anecdote and survey data, that men can pick up harmful or sadistic ideas, like strangulation, from porn. People engage in cultural learning and imitation of this kind all the time, to both good effect and ill. Acknowledging it requires nothing like a revisionary psychological account of how internet porn “rewires” the mind. In fact, it is the anti-porn behaviourist journalists who would struggle most to account for such unwelcome cultural developments in an accurate way. For many women, as they accurately insist, are repelled by the gross practices that are now ubiquitous in pornographic culture (women’s brains, somehow, resist being “rewired” by the stimulus). Men on the other hand are helplessly “reprogrammed” by all they watch. The motto seems to be: anti-behaviourist psychological nativism for women, rampant behaviourism for men. But that is just silly: a grab-bag of ill-assorted theories invoked as convenience dictates.

Are our journalists and public commentators really so naïve? Anyone worried that the opposition is presently being straw-manned should read Jo Bartosch and Robert Jessel’s recent, well-received, book, Pornocracy. In among some well-taken points about the iniquities of the porn industry is an utterly bonkers theory of human psychology hastily dressed up in the reassuring language of neuro-jargon. Porn, we learn, is so “addictive as to cause brain damage”. The visual spectacle of humans having sex is, we are rather implausibly told, a “superstimulus we’ve not evolved to process”. Consequently, it does not “serve our sexual tastes; it shapes them”. Porn “rewires the brain to be aroused by what the user sees and only by that”. “The more orgasms you have with porn,” we are warned, “the more sexually and emotionally attached to it you’ll become.” (So far, so behaviourist. But if the pleasure of masturbation really had such a radical conditioning effect, one might wonder why homo sapiens didn’t millennia ago become a short-lived species of emotionally-self-attached solitary tossers.) No allowance is made for the possibility that different men might be innately predisposed to respond differently to the same environmental stimulus. Porn has turned men into “wanking automata”. If only it were true that mere repeat exposure to the same stimulus did in fact “reprogramme” the mind, Bartosh and Jessell could stop repeating themselves so much and consider the reader successfully re-wired.

“One might wonder why homo sapiens didn’t millennia ago become a short-lived species of emotionally-self-attached solitary tossers.”

Duly alarmed by their own findings, the authors wonder gravely whether we may be witnessing the “de-evolution of humanity into an ape whose every thought and action is influenced… by the adult industry and its values – Homo Pornographicus”. Nor are they cautious about offering advice on the basis of this measured and careful analysis. Given the risk that you will wake up one morning next to a “de-evolved” porn-addicted ape, it may “make better sense for women to swear off men than to put up with a partner who uses pornography”.

Now, such bold counsel surely calls for overwhelmingly robust empirical backing. What are Bartosh and Jessel’s grounds for their startling claim that porn “has the power to enslave its users”? Helpfully, the entire second chapter, “How porn changed our brains”, takes up the question, gesturing at an “Everest of evidence” to draw on. “When people use pornography,” we read, “they create new ‘sex rewards’ pathways in their brain.” Every time they masturbate, “men experience a ‘spritz of dopamine’ that further consolidate[s] the connection between pornography and pleasure” — “reinforcing the new ‘pornsex’ brain network at the expense of the ‘real sex’ neural pathways”. The result is “irreparable damage to the brain’s dopamine system”.

Those who feel a twinge of doubt as to whether contemporary neuroscience has indeed uncovered dedicated “porn sex” and “real sex” neural pathways in the architecture of the human brain may turn to the chapter’s references. There they won’t find much. Bartosh and Jessel are unable to cite a single probative randomised controlled trial or longitudinal study to back up any of their alarmist claims about the effects of porn. Instead, they repeatedly cite from an anecdote-driven pop science book by Norman Doidge, a Canadian psychiatrist and psychoanalyst best known for promoting non-standard remedies for congenital and neurodegenerative diseases that make use of the “brain’s healing energies”. Later on, a promising reference to “dozens of studies [that] have identified the addictive capability of pornography” leads to the non-peer-reviewed work of an anti-masturbation campaigner called Gary Wilson. He is best-known for giving a TED talk on porn addiction that accumulated 17.5 million views, and which is now prefaced by a disclaimer notifying viewers that the presentation contains “assertions that are not supported by academically respected studies in medicine and psychology”.

Polemical overreach often harms a theory more than it helps it. Bartosh and Jessel sidestep obvious responses to their arguments. They misleadingly suggest more evidence is on their side than it is. They ignore evidence that compulsive behaviours have nothing like the pharmacological profile of addictive substances. They risk trivialising the category of addiction by reconceiving all actions positively reinforced by a “spritz of dopamine” as incipient dependencies. And they have their model of porn addiction rely on a strained and somewhat impressionistic analogy between the “extremity” of visual content and stimulant concentration, allowing them to insinuate that men’s initially vanilla erotic tastes escalate insatiably until they all become pornographically-reprogrammed rape fantasists (again, not a phenomenon there is much high-quality evidence to support).

The view that human beings are easily corrupted by imagery is a remarkably seductive cultural trope. Socrates proposed banishing the poets from the ideal city because of their destructive capacity to excite the soul with their fictions. Recent cultural history testifies to our tendency to overestimate the psychological damage done by media of all kinds. The panics of the Nineties and 2000s, over whether video games and R-rated movies disposed their viewers to violence, were remarkably like the porn panic of today. Then too, hysteria far outstripped the arrival of anything close to confirmatory evidence for the theory advanced by panicked columnists and cultural commentators, and such evidence has failed to come to light in the years since. Still, people seem unable to resist the idea that morally depraved media must itself be a kind of poison taken in through the eyes and ears, harming the viewer, despite the striking example provided by the long history of analogous panics whose specific fears now look like relics of parochial concern.

It does no service to the cause of anti-porn commentators that they so often make their arguments depend on shaky psychological presupposition and tendentious empirical conjecturing. But one shouldn’t expect them to stop any time soon. Behaviourist scare tactics provide too versatile a template for cultural critique. And anyway, like the targets of their favourite argument, if there’s one feeling a columnist knows better than most it’s the temptation to set shame and caution aside, slump down in front of the computer, and desperately bash out another one.


John Maier is an UnHerd columnist and PhD student at the University of Oxford

johnmaier_

Read the whole story
bogorad
21 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Trump’s immigration data dragnet

1 Share
  • DHS creation: Established post-9/11 to safeguard America, homeland, and values; led data collection for monitoring terrorists.
  • Trump administration directive: Directed DHS parts to assist ICE in achieving 1 million deportations in first year.
  • Scott Shuchart quote: Former ICE assistant director notes criminal investigative technologies repurposed for deportations, including tracking grandmothers.
  • Surveillance technologies listed: Include geolocation, facial recognition, DNA testing, eye scans, spyware, license plate cameras, credit reports.
  • AI and mobile tools: AI cross-references datasets; mobile apps provide field agents instant information access.
  • Data brokers and vendors: Proliferation enables easy surveillance; private firms like AT&T, Palantir, Clearview AI secure multimillion-dollar contracts.
  • Lobbying ties: Some contractors hired lobbyists connected to White House amid ICE ambitions.
  • Oversight concerns from officials: Former DHS privacy officer Deborah Fleischaker reports sidelined safeguards, reduced oversight, and novel rule-breaking practices.

The Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks with a mission to “safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values”. It was at the forefront of the huge data collection apparatus the US government built to monitor and locate suspected terrorists.

Under the Trump administration, large parts of America’s biggest domestic law enforcement and intelligence agency have been directed to help its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents reach a target of 1mn deportations in the president’s first year.

“Technologies used and managed for criminal investigative purposes are being repurposed, in part, to track down grandmas to deport,” says Scott Shuchart, a former ICE assistant director who left in January.

Thousands of contracts and documents outline the contours of DHS’s surveillance capabilities: geolocation, facial recognition, DNA testing, eye scans, spyware, licence plate cameras, credit reports and more. AI tools cross_**-**_reference datasets, while mobile apps give field agents information at their fingertips.

At the same time, the proliferation of data brokers and digital, “open_**-source” intelligence has made surveillance easier than ever. Unlike the government programmes revealed by Edward Snowden over a decade ago, DHS has not needed to build extensive in-**_house capabilities — vendors now offer sweeping tools at relatively low cost.

A wide array of private corporations, from global powerhouses to niche start_**-**_ups, have secured hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts, including AT&T, Thomson Reuters, Palantir and Clearview AI. Some have hired lobbyists with ties to the White House to capitalise on ICE’s growing ambitions.

Individual surveillance technologies should be understood within the “mass surveillance context”, says Emily Tucker, a professor at Georgetown Law School. “All this stuff is being used together.”

Former officials say internal safeguards have been sidelined. “There’s less oversight and more willingness to break the rules,” says Deborah Fleischaker, who served as DHS’s privacy officer and ICE chief of staff under Biden.

“Things are just unbound,” she adds. “People are doing things that have never been done before, in ways that have never been done before, with fewer safeguards in place.”

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