A statement from our CEO on national security uses of AI
The Real Existential Risk Is AI CEOs Avoiding Oversight: “Alternative Nobel” Winner Timnit Gebru
We speak to the prominent AI researcher and leading critic of the AI industry, Timnit Gebru, who was recently awarded a 2026 Right Livelihood Award for her work investigating the harms and hype behind the global buildup of artificial intelligence. “Instead of discussing faulty, unreliable systems,” Gebru says tech leaders like SpaceXAI’s Elon Musk, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei are “marketing their systems as all-knowing, superpowerful, superintelligent,” and lobbying for “self-policing and self-regulation” to avoid being held “liable through existing laws.” Gebru expresses skepticism over increasingly widespread claims that AI algorithms pose an existential risk to humanity, warning that such claims are overblown and that “what is actually happening is regulatory capture.”
AI and the crisis of the author
Editor’s note (September 21, 2026): We have removed this essay. AI was used in its preparation. The TLS editorial guidelines prohibit the use of AI in the
As the Federal Government Rushes Toward AI, Here Are Three Cautionary Tales — ProPublica
We’ve been reporting on cybersecurity for years. As President Donald Trump and his Cabinet say artificial intelligence will transform the nation, the messaging isn’t new. It follows a familiar pattern.
Action Plan to increase the safety and security of advanced AI
The first U.S. government-commissioned assessment on catastrophic national security risks from advanced AI on the path to AGI.
Responsible use of AI in the military? US publishes declaration outlining principles
12 "best practices" for using AI and autonomous systems emphasize human accountability.
AI Warfare Is Already Here
US military operators started out skeptical about AI, but now they are the ones developing and using Project Maven to identify targets on the battlefield.
Defense Intelligence: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Improve Stakeholder Engagement in the Development of New Military Intelligence System
Intelligence collected on foreign militaries is critical for the U.S. military. The Defense Intelligence Agency's database for this intelligence doesn...
Top AI Security Incidents of 2025 Revealed | Adversa AI
Discover how AI systems are being hacked in the wild — from prompt injection to agent abuse — with real breaches, lessons, and defenses in Adversa AI’s 2025 report.
How the U.S. Military Learned to Embrace AI Warfare
A review of Katrina Manson, “Project Maven: A Marine Colonel, His Team, and the Dawn of AI Warfare” (Norton, 2026).
What it Takes to Standardize AI
Civil society advocates are heading to Geneva next month for the UN's inaugural Global Dialogue on AI Governance (6–7 July) and the ITU AI for Good consultation (8 July). IX's Mallory Knodel prepared notes for a planning meeting with GNI's Multistakeholder Approaches to Participation in AI Governanc
The Pentagon’s bombshell deal with OpenAI, explained
Only Congress can put meaningful limits on government abuse of AI.
Safety Co-Option and Compromised National Security: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Weakened AI Risk Thresholds
Risk thresholds provide a measure of the level of risk exposure that a society or individual is willing to withstand, ultimately shaping how we determine the safety of technological systems. Against the backdrop of the Cold War, the first risk analyses, such as those devised for nuclear systems, cemented societally accepted risk thresholds against which safety-critical and defense systems are now evaluated. But today, the appropriate risk tolerances for AI systems have yet to be agreed on by global governing efforts, despite the need for democratic deliberation regarding the acceptable levels of harm to human life. Absent such AI risk thresholds, AI technologists-primarily industry labs, as well as "AI safety" focused organizations-have instead advocated for risk tolerances skewed by a purported AI arms race and speculative "existential" risks, taking over the arbitration of risk determinations with life-or-death consequences, subverting democratic processes. In this paper, we demonstrate how such approaches have allowed AI technologists to engage in "safety revisionism," substituting traditional safety methods and terminology with ill-defined alternatives that vie for the accelerated adoption of military AI uses at the cost of lowered safety and security thresholds. We explore how the current trajectory for AI risk determination and evaluation for foundation model use within national security is poised for a race to the bottom, to the detriment of the US's national security interests. Safety-critical and defense systems must comply with assurance frameworks that are aligned with established risk thresholds, and foundation models are no exception. As such, development of evaluation frameworks for AI-based military systems must preserve the safety and security of US critical and defense infrastructure, and remain in alignment with international humanitarian law.
A Meta AI security researcher said an OpenClaw agent ran amok on her inbox | TechCrunch
The viral X post from an AI security researcher reads like satire. But it's really a word of warning about what can go wrong when handing tasks to an AI agent.
OWASP GenAI Security Project Releases Top 10 Risks and Mitigations for Agentic AI Security
Culmination of over 100 industry leaders’ input and extensive published resources to deliver critical guidance to address Agentic AI Security risks WILMINGTON, Del. — Dec. 10, 2025 — The OWASP GenAI Security Project (genai.owasp.org), a leading global open-source and expert community dedicated to delivering practical guidance and tools for securing generative and agentic AI, […]
Deterrence with Mutual Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM) — Chapter 4 of Superintelligence Strategy
Chapter 4: Deterrence with Mutual Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM). Rapid advances in AI are beginning to reshape national security. Destabilizing AI developments could rupture the balance of power and raise the odds of great-power conflict, while widespread proliferation of capable AI hackers and virologists would lower barriers for rogue actors to cause catastrophe.
