A protest against AI outside OpenAI headquarters in San Francisco, California, on 11 July. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

US: Trump Vows to “Break Wynd” Over AI Row! (17.8.2026)

She said that when she was found guilty, she was “hit with a wave of grief” because she realised her peers “just didn’t get” the danger she believes is posed by the race to superintelligence. But she was beginning to feel “vindicated” as more prominent figures like Sanders were speaking out. She is now braced for the prison experience of an orange jump suit, “horrible food, dirt [and] you can’t sleep”. She has been previously jailed for short periods related to her decades of political activism over causes including Nicaragua, nuclear disarmament, western Sahara and Palestine.

Her message to the chief executives of OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta, which also reported a security incident with its model, was “regain your humanity”. Kaufmyn said her target audience was ordinary people “and the message being: stop the progress of this technology. Let’s get a global ban on the race to superintelligence.”

Prof Stuart Russell, a leading AI academic at the University of California at Berkeley and president of the International Association for Safe and Ethical AI, gave evidence in Kaufmyn’s defence. He claimed OpenAI’s activities “pose an unacceptable risk”, alleging it had deployed AI systems with inadequate safeguards. He said that further development of these systems “must be conditioned on rigorous guarantees of safety, which are currently unavailable”.

Mark Hehir, 62, was driving the 206 bus between Wembley and Maida Vale in north-west London in June 2024 when the incident unfolded.

UK: The Mark Hehir Story – How the BBC Manipulates the News Toward Right-Wing Popularism – By Suppressing Narrative-Altering Details! (3.2.3026)

Onething that we can gleam from the operation of Judeo-Christian societies is that “lying” to the masses has its rules (just look at Israel to prove this). Below is three examples of exactly the same story involving a “have a go” bus-driver in London who knocked-out a thief during one of his shifts. This story is legally and regulatory complex – and he was suspended – and then sacked following his loss at two tribunals. As the story gained traction in the mainstream and right-wing press, this “White” bus-driver became something of a celebrity to the far-right (although he is careful not to virtue-signal any personal connection with it himself). Furthermore, as the mainstream media communicates in “code” (whilst attempting not to racially inflame issues) – there is no mention of the ethnicity of the thief – which usually implies he may not be White (hitting a non-White suspect might have influenced the decision to sack the driver). The BBC narrative presented first is the latest version containing much less details (presenting the driver as a misundestood hero) – whilst the second BBC narrative is around five-days old and contains far-more details (explaning that although the self-defence aspect was lawful [just] and legal [within a very narrow context] – the many other contributory aspects definitely were not). This process of “removing” details inverts the usual trajectory of gaining ever-more details and correctly reporting a story in greater detail. The third narrative is from a different news outlet and contains the “full” story from an impartial (non-BBC) news source.