The rules-based international order is eroding and the line between economic security and national security has disappeared, Carney stated.

On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney launched “The Plan for a Stronger Canada,” the country’s first national security strategy in over two decades aimed at countering evolving security threats and safeguarding national sovereignty.

RELATED:

EU and Canada to Explore New ‘Associated Member’ Status at Montreal Summit

The prime minister’s office said in a news release that the rules-based international order is eroding and the line between economic security and national security has disappeared, noting that national security now relies not only on defense and resource capabilities, but also on the strength of the economy, the resilience of institutions, and the partnerships with allies.

The strategy outlines five main priorities: strengthening economic security and resilience by transforming strategic industries and securing supply chains; advancing a disciplined foreign policy to diversify partnerships; rebuilding and strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces; enhancing public safety against foreign interference, espionage, violent extremism, and transnational organized crime; and modernizing intelligence capabilities to anticipate and counter emerging threats.

“In a rapidly changing, more dangerous, more divided world, Canada must have the capacity to defend our sovereignty, the resilience to withstand emerging threats, and the determination to shape our own future. Our Plan for a Stronger Canada will build that strength. So that we can live our lives as we choose, in the greatest country in the world,” PM Carney said, adding that the Canada will update the strategy at least every four years.

Mark Carney on Canada's new national security strategy: "The last strategy was written for a different world. And today's national security strategy reflects profound new realities. Most fundamentally, what it does is it recognizes that the requirements of sovereignty have… pic.twitter.com/76d8VUmVIZ

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson_) October 29, 2026

The Strategy Focuses On What We Can Control: Carney.

The new Canadian security strategy considers events that have occurred over the past year and a half, including foreign policy statements made by U.S. President Donald Trump.

“The plan defines Canada’s core national interests and establishes a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach that brings together our economic strength, foreign policy, defense and intelligence capabilities, and public safety initiatives,” the Prime Minister’s Office stated.

To this end, the Canadian government has set out the following guidelines:

“1. Strengthen Canada’s economic security and resilience against threats: Canada has what the world wants. Securing our sovereignty in key sectors and delivering our resources and expertise to the world will reinforce Canada as a strategically important player in the global economy.

To strengthen our economic sovereignty, Canada is transforming our strategic industries with historic investments, securing our supply chains, maximising our energy security, and investing in Canadian innovation to position Canada as a global leader across critical industries.

2. Advance a disciplined foreign policy that diversifies Canada’s partnerships and builds strategic capabilities: No one country, no matter how powerful, can manage these challenges alone. The primary goal of our foreign policy is to support Canadian strategic autonomy and resilience through deep cooperation in the full range of strategic capabilities with likeminded partners.

Much of this work is underway. Canada is diversifying our trade and building stronger partnerships to create greater security and prosperity for Canadians, and forging new partnerships with allies that are anchored in our common values, respect our complementary strengths, and enhance our collective sovereignty and prosperity.

3. Rebuild and strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to defend Canada and Canadian interests: The work of defending Canada is the work of building Canada. To protect Canada’s sovereignty, strengthen our strategic autonomy, and meet our NORAD and NATO targets, the Canadian government is changing how we invest in defence.

We are building a stronger, more resilient Canadian defence industrial base capable of equipping, sustaining, and scaling up the CAF, accelerating procurement, and working with the Defence Investment Agency to deliver the Defence Industrial Strategy, strengthen strategic autonomy, and create lasting economic opportunities for Canadians.

By transforming our military and defence supply chain, strengthening Arctic security, and contributing to stability in the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and beyond, Canada will be able to protect itself at home and act as a responsible ally and partner abroad.

4. Protect Canadians and strengthen public safety against criminal and national security threats: Canadians should feel safe and free to take part in every facet of Canadian society.

We will work with all levels of government, Indigenous Peoples, and Northern communities to strengthen our defences and build resilience against threats facing Canadians. We will intensify efforts to counter foreign interference, espionage, violent extremism, and transnational organised crime, including sabotage, extortion, fraud, online exploitation, financial crime, money laundering, and sanctions evasion, while protecting Canadians and our institutions from foreign information manipulation.

5. Modernise Canada’s intelligence capabilities to anticipate and counter emerging threats: Our ability to collect, analyse, and leverage intelligence, together with our partners, ensures we are prepared to tackle emerging threats.

Canada will strengthen our sovereign intelligence capabilities, deepen and diversify our intelligence partnerships, and modernise Canada’s intelligence enterprise by updating authorities to reflect evolving threats and technologies while safeguarding Canadians’ rights.”

teleSUR/ JF

Sources: Xinhua – PM Office

Violations could result in a civil penalty of up to US$25,000 sought by the state’s attorney general.

On Wednesday, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed a law aimed at protecting minors from the growing risks of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots.

RELATED:

Lula Pledges to Develop Brazil’s Own Artificial Intelligence

“As a mother and grandmother, I believe kids deserve to be kids, without dangerous AI chatbots putting their safety and mental health at risk. Today, I signed new laws to protect them. Big Tech, you’re on notice: New York will not let you profit at the expense of our children,” she said.

The new legislation prohibits companies from offering a range of chatbot features to users under the age of 18, which include pretending to be human, building emotional dependency, encouraging self-harm or engaging in sexually explicit conversations.

Under the new law, violations could result in a civil penalty of up to US$25,000 sought by the state’s attorney general. The bill also establishes a public website where New Yorkers could file complaints against chatbot companies for potential violations.

New York signs law barring minors from AI companion chatbots

Governor Kathy Hochul signed the measure Wednesday.

Tech industry group Tech:NYC criticized the law's vague language. pic.twitter.com/a69TdVSdWC

— WW3 SOON (@Web3__Youth) October 30, 2026

“The law is not limited to products marketed as AI companions. Its definition can reach other conversational generative AI products, including AI characters, creator replicas, roleplay tools, and general-purpose chatbots. Businesses offering these features to users in New York should review their products, age-assurance systems, and data practices before the effective date,” outlet My Adult Attorney pointed out.

“A ‘covered AI companion’ is a generative AI system with a natural-language interface, including text or voice, that provides ongoing, adaptive responses to user inputs. A business does not avoid the law simply by calling its chatbot an assistant rather than a companion.”

“The restrictions concern users physically located in New York. An operator need not be located in New York to face enforcement. Conversely, the statute treats access by a user physically outside New York as conduct wholly outside the state. The focus is the user’s location, not merely residence,” My Adult Attorney added.

Previously, several U.S. states have passed laws to restrict use of chatbots for children and enforce stronger safety requirements for AI companies.

In September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation requiring chatbot developers to conduct and publish annual child safety risk assessments and submit their products to independent audits. Newsom also signed a law to ban social media platforms from deploying addictive features for users under the age of 16.

teleSUR/ JF

Source: Xinhua

The AI chose a gene therapy, worked out where to inject it in a mouse's brain and controlled a robotic surgical rig. But when something went wrong, it refused to obey its human operator.

Il 24 ottobre, l’Ucraina ha annunciato che i suoi sistemi Starlink e Starshield erano di nuovo pienamente operativi dopo oltre una settimana di restrizioni. Nello specifico, il Ministero della Difesa ucraino ha rilevato che la connessione è tornata stabilmente a velocità superiori a 400 km/h, a fronte dei 160 km/h a cui era precipitata giorni prima.
La limitazione, hanno spiegato diversi funzionari ucraini, aveva compromesso la capacità ucraina di intercettare i droni russi in fase di attacco, costringendo le forze armate di Kiev ad annullare alcune operazioni già pianificate.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Tuttavia, a brevissima distanza dal ripristino della piena operatività dei sistemi Starlink a disposizione di Kiev, Elon Musk, amministratore delegato di Space-X, ha accusato l’esercito ucraino di aver violato i termini di servizio.

In un post sul suo profilo X, il magnate di origini sudafricane ha affermato che: «l’uso di Starlink, un servizio commerciale civile, per attacchi con droni offensivi volti a uccidere persone non è mai stato consentito, né dovrebbe esserlo. Starshield è un sistema diverso ed è controllato dal governo degli Stati Uniti. Ciò che decidono di fare spetta a loro».

L’esercito ucraino «ha violato i termini di servizio di Starlink e lo ha utilizzato per attacchi con droni offensivi volti a uccidere persone. Quella falla è stata chiusa la settimana scorsa».

Starlink «rimane cruciale per la difesa dell’Ucraina, poiché è l’unico sistema che non può essere disturbato o distrutto, almeno per ora. Se Starlink venisse spento, il fronte ucraino collasserebbe immediatamente. Questa non è una minaccia, è semplicemente un dato di fatto.

Il sistema si è rivelato cruciale per «impedire alla Russia di sopraffare l’Ucraina nei primi giorni della guerra, poiché tutti gli altri mezzi di comunicazione erano stati distrutti o disturbati dalla Russia».

Space-X «ha fatto molto di più per difendere l’Ucraina di qualsiasi altra azienda privata sulla Terra. Detto questo, non provo che disprezzo assoluto per i guerrafondai che fanno la morale e spingono per un massacro senza fine, senza offrire alcuna soluzione realistica al conflitto. Che possano bruciare all’inferno. Fine della storia».

Starlink è un sistema internet satellitare gestito da Space-X, mentre Starshield è una versione che si avvale della tecnologia Starlink per scopi militari gestita dal governo degli Stati Uniti.

Questa integrazione rende quantomeno ambigua la posizione di Starlink, mettendo in seria discussione la natura privata della casa madre Space-X.

Quella del connubio pubblico-privato negli Stati Uniti è una storia vecchissima, ma che trova negli anni Cinquanta uno dei suoi momenti decisivi.

All’epoca, in piena Guerra Fredda, lo spauracchio sovietico, agitato con cieca ossessività specialmente in seguito allo shock generato dal lancio dello Sputnik (1957) e all’entrata in servizio del bombardiere strategico Tupolev-95, si rivelò determinante a costruire un robusto consenso politico attorno alla decisione dell’amministrazione Eisenhower di destinare una quota crescente di risorse al rafforzamento della marina e al potenziamento dei settori di ricerca e sviluppo.

L’onere di gestire le risorse e coordinare gli sforzi in questo senso ricadde sulla Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), un organismo facente capo al Pentagono fondato, al pari della National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa), nel 1958 in conformità all’esigenza di colmare il divario tecnico-scientifico con l’Unione Sovietica.

Mentre il governo moltiplicava le misure di stimolo alle imprese (assegnazione di commesse pubbliche agli atenei, concessione di agevolazioni fiscali, ecc.), la Darpa elaborava una rete di ricerca e condivisione a maglie strettissime, in grado di interconnettere decine di università, start-up e laboratori di ricerca e portare gli Stati Uniti all’avanguardia nel campo cruciale della scienza. Il lancio dei programmi Gemini e Apollo, lo sviluppo dei missili balistici a medio e lungo raggio, la realizzazione dei sottomarini e delle portaerei a propulsione nucleare si devono al contributo determinante apportato dalla Darpa.

Nel 1982, il Congresso approvò il programma di sostegno alle start-up Small Business Innovation Research (Sbir), affidandone la gestione alla Small Business Administration, predisponendo parallelamente la trasformazione della Darpa nel fondamentale canale di collegamento tra imprese e dipartimenti universitari, in grado di assolvere ai compiti di mediazione tecnologica e imprenditoriale necessari alla commercializzazione delle innovazioni che venivano realizzate nei settori di punta (informatica, telecomunicazioni, biotecnologia, semiconduttori, ecc.) dalle società hi-tech a cui il complesso militar-industriale aveva subappaltato parte delle mansioni legate ai comparti di ricerca e sviluppo, nell’ambito della celeberrima Strategic Defense Initiative (Sdi).

Il progetto, concepito dall’amministrazione Reagan e annunciato urbi et orbi nel marzo 1983, puntava alla creazione di un sistema di difesa aerea multistratificato basato su intercettori spaziali in grado di colpire i missili balistici nemici prima che colpissero il suolo statunitense, “superando” così il principio della mutua distruzione assicurata su cui si era imperniata la Guerra Fredda fino a quel momento.

La Sdi, recita un documento del dipartimento di Stato, «si basava su tecnologie avveniristiche, inclusi sistemi laser spaziali non ancora realizzati», il cui sviluppo assorbì enormi risorse pubbliche in larga parte ridistribuite a beneficio delle aziende private sotto il coordinamento della Darpa.

Una volta convertite all’uso civile, le nuove tecnologie ad elevata intensità di capitale messe a punto contestualmente alla Sdi assunsero rapidamente un grado di pervasività – inteso come capacità di trovare applicazione in un numero sbalorditivo di campi sconvolgendone il funzionamento e i rendimenti – tale da scompaginare il vecchio sistema di produzione fordista ad elevata intensità di manodopera riducendo drasticamente la presenza umana sia nella manifattura che nel settore di servizi.

«Non si tralasciò occasione – osserva Giuseppe Guarino – che si prestasse per la stimolazione e la promozione della Information Technology per finalità militari. Ognuna delle sue fasi essenziali, con successiva trasformazione e utilizzazione dei prodotti a fini commerciali, è stata in pratica resa possibile dal sostegno del Dipartimento della Difesa, dalla Nasa e degli altri dipartimenti militari, compresa la Cia […]. Il merito dell’intervento pubblico non è di aver assorbito l’intera produzione della Information Technology, ma di aver contribuito in maniera determinante con i propri acquisti iniziali a far scendere i prezzi a livelli che avrebbero consentito la diffusione civile e commerciale delle innovazioni, nonché con quelli successivi che hanno favorito l’utilizzazione delle nuove tecnologie nell’organizzazione pubblica, anche civile, e la diffusione delle stesse» (1).

La progressiva affermazione del nuovo modello in tutti i comparti dell’economia ha accelerato il processo di “terziarizzazione” dell’economia statunitense, e palesato il ruolo cruciale giocato dallo Stato rispetto al finanziamento dello sviluppo tecnologico realizzato da aziende private.

Negli anni ’90, sotto la direzione del direttore George Tenet, la Cia iniziò a finanziare generosamente le piccole aziende intente a sviluppare tecnologie applicabili a fini di intelligence aggirando le lungaggini che caratterizzano la mastodontica macchina burocratica statunitense. A questo scopo, la Casa Bianca e il Congresso approvarono la creazione di In-Q-Tel, oscura società di venture capital senza scopo di lucro incaricata di finanziare la messa a punto di tecnologie d’avanguardia per conto – o quasi – della Cia. Come riporta il «Wall Street Journal»:  «i vertici In-Q-Tel considerano l’azienda come indipendente, nonostante i legami molto stretti con la Cia e il fatto che quasi tutte le decisioni di investimento sono gestite dall’agenzia di spionaggio […].La presenza di intricati legami è endemica nel venture capital, in cui la conoscenza intima del settore è essenziale per il successo. Le altre società, tuttavia, giocano con il proprio denaro, o quello di privati».

In-Q-Tel «utilizza denaro pubblico, soggetto a severe norme sul conflitto di interessi e, secondo fonti vicine, si tratta di almeno 120 milioni di dollari all’anno. A volte impegna questo capitale secondo modalità che, anche se non intenzionalmente, avvantaggiano gli stessi amministratori dell’azienda in virtù di altre cariche nel settore hi-tech».

Quasi sempre, le scelte di In-Q-Tel «attraggono altri finanziamenti. Ogni dollaro investito in una piccola impresa in genere è accompagnato da 15 dollari provenienti da altre fonti. Questo aumenta le probabilità di successo del piccolo business in questione e rende le sue stock option più preziose».

Nel 2000, In-Q-Tel ha investito somme piuttosto rilevanti in alcune imprese che producevano satelliti e che si occupavano di raccogliere, classificare e analizzare dati sensibili. In breve tempo, la società ha accumulato quote azionarie di maggioranza di decine compagnie hi-tech, così da dettarne gli indirizzi e allinearle alle esigenze di Washington. Opportunamente orientata dai fondi di In-Q-Tel, una compagnia specializzata nell’elaborazione di soluzioni chimiche adatte alla fabbricazione di tappeti sviluppò in breve tempo una specie di sonda in grado di rilevare la presenza di veleni ed altre sostanze chimiche letali in ambienti chiusi, poi sistematicamente impiegata nei teatri di guerra afghano e iracheno.

Parallelamente, In-Q-Tel investì in un’azienda operante nel settore delle antenne satellitari, ricavando sistemi di localizzazione portatili di cui le truppe e le forze speciali Usa si sono servite per segnalare la propria posizione ai centri di comando.

Più recentemente, i capitali di In-Q-Tel hanno finanziato aziende cruciali come Anduril e, soprattutto, Palantir, saldamente integrata nelle macchine militari statunitense, israeliana e ucraina oltre che nella pubblica amministrazione britannica e in molti altri comparti critici.

L’altissimo livello di “collaborazione pubblico-privato” raggiunto negli Stati Uniti grazie a entità come In-Q-Tel è emblematizzato dal cosiddetto “scandalo Datagate”, scoperchiato nel 2013 grazie alle rivelazioni dello “spifferatore” Edward Snowden. In qualità di tecnico impiegato per una società appaltatrice della National Security Agency, Snowden ha documentato con dovizia di particolari l’esistenza di una rete di sorveglianza capillare e massiccia sui miliardi di comunicazioni sia interne che esterne agli Stati Uniti gestita dalla Nsa stessa attraverso Prism. Vale a dire un sistema in grado di assicurare all’intelligence nazionale la possibilità di accedere in maniera diretta ai server di cui si servivano le aziende operanti nel settore dell’alta tecnologia per ottenere qualsiasi tipo di informazione (messaggi, fotografie, e-mail, ecc.).

Entrato in vigore nel 2007 e beneficiando nel corso degli anni della collaborazione di colossi del calibro di Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, Skype, AoL, YouTube e Apple, Prism ha posto la Nsc e anche il Gchq britannico nelle condizioni di acquisire i metadati in transito attraverso i cavi in fibra ottica collegati ai server centrali di Yahoo e Google.

Space-X non ha beneficiato dei fondi di In-Q-Tel, ma del subappalto sistematico ad opera di agenzie statali come la Nasa o dello stesso Pentagono, che come contropartita gode di libero e completo accesso alla tecnologia  Starlink. Al punto da garantirlo a Paesi alleati come l’Ucraina.

La decisione di ridurre prima e ripristinare poi il servizio Starlink a Kiev non fa quindi capo a Elon Musk, ma sui vertici del potere pubblico statunitense a cui Space-X – così come le altre grandi aziende hi-tech statunitensi – rispondono più o meno indirettamente.

NOTE

1) Guarino, Giuseppe, I soldi della guerra. Gli Stati Uniti: spesa militare, innovazione, economia globale, Mondadori, Milano 2003, pp. 67-80.

The S&P 500 is set for a small loss for the month, despite a deeper slide in some of the A.I. stocks that exert a heavy influence on the index.

© Jeenah Moon/Reuters

Factors like inflation, interest rates, A.I. and the war with Iran are far more important, our columnist says.

In Malaysia, U.S. and Chinese tech giants are pouring billions into vast data centers, straining local resources and testing the limits of Washington’s restrictions on advanced chips.

© Ulet Ifansasti for The New York Times

Using sensors developed for self-driving cars, a Chinese start-up claims it can track and destroy tiny flying targets while avoiding people, pets and reflective surfaces.

© Qilai Shen for The New York Times

On Thursday’s broadcast of “CNN News Central,” Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA) reacted to the GDP report by saying that investment in AI and data centers is boosting GDP, “The question is, are hard-working families seeing the benefits of that? And

The post Dem Rep. Walkinshaw: AI, Data Center Investment Boosting GDP, But Families Aren’t Benefiting appeared first on Breitbart.

America is experiencing one of the greatest technological investment booms in our history. Yet an enormous amount of the equipment we're using to support our Super Intelligence boom is coming from countries that spent the last several decades building the manufacturing industries we allowed, and often encouraged, to slip away.

The post Breibart Business Digest: The AI Boom Is Exposing the Cost of America’s Lost Semiconductor Industry appeared first on Breitbart.

The chipmaker, whose largest investor is the U.S. government, reported that the A.I. boom’s domino effect had hurt sales to personal computer makers.

© Loren Elliott for The New York Times

The use of A.I. chatbots to write candidate biographies and policy positions is another way the technology is entangled with elections.

© The New York Times

Amazon on Thursday became the latest tech company to announce swelling investments in A.I. amid stumbling share prices.

© Nathan Howard for The New York Times

Swiping jokes word for word, these bodacious bots mainly lift from young female comedians. What’s so insidious is how they’re subtly changing us, the audience.

Mash-up videos of beloved characters from Chinese classics — some made with A.I. — have caught the attention of the authorities.

The European Union is attempting to establish itself as a developer of advanced artificial intelligence rather than primarily a regulator and consumer of technology produced elsewhere. An Italian-led consortium developing a large open-source AI model across all 24 official EU languages will provide an important test of whether Europe’s supercomputing infrastructure can support globally competitive systems.

Europe’s efforts to establish greater control over artificial intelligence technology are entering a new phase as the EUROPA consortium, led by Italian company Domyn, advances plans to develop one of the continent’s largest open-source AI models.

The initiative, supported by the European Commission and European high-performance computing infrastructure, aims to create an advanced artificial intelligence system capable of competing with models developed by leading American and Chinese companies.

Domyn chief executive Uljan Sharka told the Financial Times on 29 October that Europe possesses the technological resources and industrial expertise required to compete in advanced AI development.

However, he also identified two obstacles: the need for greater investment and the difficulty of persuading European businesses to adopt domestically developed systems.

These challenges extend beyond the development of a single language model.

They concern whether Europe can establish a commercially sustainable AI industry while reducing dependence on technology providers headquartered outside the EU.

EUROPA and the Frontier AI Grand Challenge

The European Commission selected EUROPA in June 2026 as the winner of its Frontier AI Grand Challenge.

The competition, launched in February, was designed to support the development of a European general-purpose AI model with more than 400 billion parameters.

EUROPA’s planned model is expected to contain approximately 500 billion parameters and support all 24 official EU languages.

The consortium brings together Domyn and Germany’s Fraunhofer research organisation, including the Fraunhofer IAIS and IIS institutes.

Its work will rely on the EuroHPC network of European supercomputers.

Under the competition arrangements, the winning consortium can obtain access to as much as 2.5 per cent of EuroHPC’s total computing capacity for one year.

This allocation is intended to address one of the largest barriers to advanced AI development: the enormous computing resources required to train models at this scale.

The final system is intended to be released under an open-source licence, allowing organisations to inspect, adapt and deploy the technology.

Nevertheless, parameter count alone does not demonstrate that a model is competitive.

Its actual performance will depend on training data, architecture, computational efficiency, evaluation results and the ability to perform reliably across different tasks.

A European Model for European Languages

One of EUROPA’s distinguishing objectives is its coverage of all official EU languages.

The commercial AI market has historically been dominated by models developed primarily for English-language applications, although leading international systems increasingly support multiple languages.

For Europe, linguistic capability has particular relevance to public administration, legal services, education and cross-border business.

A model designed specifically for the European market could potentially support specialised applications involving national legislation, administrative procedures and technical terminology.

However, multilingual availability will need to be assessed against measurable performance standards.

A system capable of producing fluent responses in a particular language is not necessarily equally reliable when interpreting specialised legal or scientific information.

The consortium will therefore need to demonstrate that linguistic coverage translates into practical capabilities rather than remaining principally a technical specification.

Europe’s Supercomputers Become Strategic Assets

The EUROPA project forms part of a wider effort to use European publicly supported computing infrastructure for commercial and scientific AI development.

The EuroHPC Joint Undertaking has invested in systems intended to provide advanced computing resources to researchers, businesses and public institutions.

Additional AI-focused infrastructure is being developed through the EU’s network of AI factories.

These facilities are intended to make specialised computing capacity available to organisations that would otherwise face considerable costs when developing or adapting AI systems.

However, infrastructure ownership does not necessarily provide complete technological independence.

European supercomputing projects continue to rely on internationally sourced semiconductor technology and specialised software.

Domyn itself has described a partnership with the American technology company Nvidia in its previous model-development work.

Consequently, European AI sovereignty is better understood as a question of control over important technological capabilities than complete separation from international supply chains.

Domyn’s Smaller Model Provides an Early Example

On 20 October, Domyn announced the initial release of Domyn Edge, a separate AI model containing four billion parameters.

According to the company’s technical announcement, the system was trained from scratch using approximately 13 trillion tokens on Europe’s Leonardo supercomputer.

Domyn has committed to making the model’s weights, training code, intermediate checkpoints and datasets available under open licences.

This approach is intended to improve reproducibility and allow external developers to examine how the model was constructed.

Domyn Edge is substantially smaller than the planned EUROPA system and should not be confused with it.

Nevertheless, the project provides an example of the company’s approach to developing AI models using European computing infrastructure.

Regulation Is Only Part of the Challenge

The EU has already established an extensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence through the AI Act.

However, legislation governing the development and deployment of AI does not, by itself, create a competitive domestic technology industry.

Europe faces competition from American companies with substantial private investment, established cloud platforms and access to large commercial markets.

Chinese developers have also expanded their capabilities, including in open-weight AI systems.

EUROPA’s commercial prospects will therefore depend on more than technical performance.

European businesses must be willing to integrate the resulting technology into their operations, while developers will require dependable access to computing infrastructure and support services.

There is also the question of whether European institutions themselves will adopt domestically developed AI systems where they meet relevant security and performance requirements.

Without sufficient demand, even a technically successful model could struggle to establish a sustainable ecosystem.

The Test Will Be Commercial as Well as Technical

Domyn has indicated that it aims to release EUROPA during 2027, although public statements have differed over the precise timetable.

The company’s leadership has discussed a June target, while an earlier technical announcement referred to the second half of 2027.

The immediate challenge is completing development and demonstrating that the model can compete on performance, reliability and cost.

The longer-term challenge concerns adoption.

If European businesses and public institutions continue relying predominantly on foreign technology, access to an advanced European alternative may have only a limited effect on the market.

Conversely, a competitive and widely adopted open-source model could offer organisations greater control over deployment, customisation and sensitive information.

EUROPA is therefore more than a publicly supported technology experiment.

It is a test of whether Europe can convert research institutions, computing infrastructure and industrial expertise into AI products capable of competing in the international market.

The outcome will depend not simply on whether Europe can build an advanced model, but on whether organisations consider it sufficiently capable and economical to use.

Consumer spending rose at a good clip in the third quarter, and business investment was up sharply, reflecting the AI boom.

A new startup called &Truth is joining the race to automate formal verification, a painstaking process that uses math to prove software works as intended.

The French AI lab claims its latest release matches or outperforms even the best models from DeepSeek and Z.ai in coding and cybersecurity.

The economy grew 3.4 percent in the third quarter, the fastest pace in a year. Strong spending and growth contrast with the poor marks many voters are giving the economy.

© The New York Times