With a contentious midterm election less than a week away, one cause has unified voters and candidates across the political spectrum: slowing down AI. 

A friend of mine who directs tens of millions of dollars in midterm election spending says he's never seen voter salience of an issue—AI, broadly—increase so quickly. In July, Gallup found that 39 percent of Americans thought AI does more harm than good, up from 31 percent in 2025. Only 9 percent of Americans, meanwhile, thought the technology did more good than harm (down from 12 percent last year). 

Public sentiment has since soured even more. An October ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that 57 percent of Americans think AI is bad for society, while a staggering 66 percent said they opposed new data center construction in the United States.

Politicians on the left and right have seized on this political sentiment and offered their own data center stiff-arm policy du jour. However, even a full e-brake on data center construction would do little to stop AI progress. 

In August, Arvind Narayanan, director of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy and co-author of AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference, claimed that a data center moratorium would basically not slow AI development at all. 

Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, he concluded (under some reasonable assumptions) that a one-year data center moratorium in a "typical U.S. state" would slow down AI progress nationally by only five to 10 hours. Assuming that at least half of data center developers would avoid a moratorium by building their facilities elsewhere, a one-year freeze on construction in larger states like New York would set AI in America back by less than one day, according to Narayanan. 

My own modeling of this question reaches essentially the same conclusion as Narayanan's, but rather than assuming computing power will continue growing at its current rate, it treats future growth as dependent on how much computing capacity gets built. I considered three theoretical policy regimes: a full stop on new data center construction and on replacement of depreciated graphics processing units (GPUs); a full stop on new data center construction only; and no restrictions whatsoever. 

The point is that, as a federal policy, standing athwart data centers yelling "Stop!" doesn't accomplish the outcomes that moratorium-ites claim to want. And, while some local policies could slightly impede center growth, the only way to hamper the progress of frontier models would be to enact an extremely draconian policy regime—one that goes beyond moratoriums for new data centers and prohibits GPU upgrades in existing facilities—which no one is actually proposing or close to implementing. 

What does this all tell us about where advocates of any stripe should put their efforts? 

For those in favor of accelerating AI, on the one hand, it provides comfort in that data center construction, even in the extreme, is not a binding constraint to AI advancement. But on the other hand, the political energy currently concentrated on mobilizing the backlash won't stay focused there forever; an issue where more than two-thirds of people are even tangentially opposed to your "side" is not one that easily disappears.

For doomers, it means if the goal is a "pause" of some sort on the ability of AI technology to, say, replace you in your job, targeting data center construction isn't the best way to go about it. It may be a useful galvanizing node in the broader policy fight, but don't expect it to cause any meaningful change in the current trajectory—whatever you believe that to be. 

The ineffectiveness of data center moratoriums doesn't make the policy on its own more or less optimal. But if the data center protests are a proxy for broader AI-induced anxiety about large language models crowding out human pursuits, causing unemployment, or destroying the environment, protestors will need to find another leverage point.

The post Data Center Bans Won't Stop AI. They'll Barely Slow It Down. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The race for artificial intelligence (AI), or superintelligence, will be won not just by technology companies, but by the nation that can deliver reliable, affordable and secure electricity. America is in a high-stakes sprint to lead the world in AI. This technology will reshape our economy, strengthen national defense, transform manufacturing and determine which nations lead the next generation of innovation.

But Washington and Silicon Valley cannot afford to ignore a glaring bottleneck: AI runs on electricity. America must dramatically expand its power generation and delivery infrastructure if it hopes to remain the global technology leader.

Data centers are the backbone of this revolution. They require enormous amounts of electricity, reliable grid connections and specialized infrastructure. Without sufficient power, advanced AI systems are little more than expensive hardware waiting for a connection. This creates an immense opportunity for America’s electric utilities. For too long, utilities have been viewed simply as service providers. Today, they are strategic partners in America’s economic competitiveness and national security.

THE AI REVOLUTION WILL GO WHEREVER THERE'S ELECTRICITY — AND CHINA KNOWS IT

To win the AI race, America must unleash domestic energy production, accelerate infrastructure development, defend against cyber threats and ensure that the private sector — not residential ratepayers — finances this expansion. This is a crucial opportunity for the administration, Congress, state governments and the private sector to coordinate an energy strategy that prioritizes American competitiveness.

Let the private sector finance growth

Electric utilities possess the engineering expertise and operational experience necessary to support data center expansion. They understand regional demand, transmission constraints and the complex mechanics of grid reliability. However, building the necessary infrastructure takes time; new generation facilities, transmission lines and substations often require years of planning, permitting and construction.

FIRST DATA CENTER BILL CLEARS HOUSE AS BOTH PARTIES SCRAMBLE FOR ANSWERS ON AFFORDABILITY

Data center developers, meanwhile, want to move quickly to capitalize on the AI boom. To bridge this gap, utilities and developers must collaborate much earlier in the process, aligning construction schedules, forecasting demand and identifying necessary upfront investments. Washington can support this by streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory delays to provide long-term investment certainty.

Crucially, data center developers must bear their fair share of the infrastructure costs driven by their massive electricity demands. Residential customers and small businesses should not subsidize infrastructure built primarily to serve trillion-dollar technology companies. Long-term power purchase agreements, dedicated infrastructure investments and minimum billing commitments can ensure large customers contribute appropriately. This is an argument for responsible, pro-business growth where financial risks are not shifted onto ordinary Americans.

The White House’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge reinforces the principle that America can accelerate AI innovation without forcing ordinary Americans to subsidize Big Tech’s infrastructure demands. Electric utilities can benefit from increased electricity sales, long-term power contracts and investments in generation and grid infrastructure, provided data center developers pay their fair share of the costs.

DATA CENTERS COULD BE THE SLEEPER ISSUE OF THE 2026 MIDTERM ELECTIONS

To protect consumers, we must require transparent cost allocation, enforceable commitments from large data center customers and safeguards preventing residential ratepayers from being left with stranded infrastructure costs if projects are delayed, scaled back or abandoned.

Energy dominance requires real abundance

America cannot achieve energy dominance if it cannot generate enough electricity to power its expanding economy. Meeting this challenge requires an "all-of-the-above" strategy that evaluates energy resources strictly based on reliability, affordability and availability.

TRUMP ENERGY DEPARTMENT ISSUES EMERGENCY ORDER TO PREVENT BLACKOUTS ACROSS 13 STATES AMID UNUSUAL OCTOBER HEAT

Natural gas provides essential dispatchable generation, while nuclear energy offers dependable baseline power with low operational emissions. Hydroelectric power, wind, solar and battery storage all contribute where they make economic sense. Existing coal facilities also remain part of the equation where continued operation is economic and legally compliant.

No single technology can solve every regional power challenge. Utilities need the flexibility to select the optimal resource mix for their customers. The objective is straightforward: build enough reliable generation and transmission capacity to meet rising demand without spiking energy prices. This is vital as data centers increasingly compete for power with manufacturers, hospitals, military bases and households. Energy abundance is a national security imperative.

Securing the grid from cyber threats

There is another critical threat that deserves far more attention: cybersecurity. The electric grid and digital infrastructure are deeply interconnected. Power disruptions halt essential computing services, while software incidents at technology providers can ripple back to affect critical infrastructure. Foreign adversaries and sophisticated cybercriminals understand these critical dependencies.

Electric utilities operate vital infrastructure that must withstand attacks against corporate networks, industrial control systems and substations. Concurrently, data centers face distinct risks involving cloud platforms, software supply chains and third-party vendor access. These are interconnected risks that could have significant national security consequences.

AN AI CYBERATTACK COULD TURN OFF AMERICA'S LIGHTS BEFORE WASHINGTON EVEN UNDERSTANDS WHY

Utilities and data center operators must establish joint incident response plans, conduct realistic multisector exercises and develop secure mechanisms for sharing threat intelligence. Organizations should strengthen network segmentation, multifactor authentication and vulnerability management. In particular, utilities must ensure that a compromise of ordinary corporate IT does not provide a path into operational technology controlling the grid. A stolen password should never become a gateway to disabling the power supply.

Supply-chain security deserves equal focus. Hardware, software and remote maintenance arrangements can introduce vulnerabilities into both utility operations and data center environments. Companies must rigorously assess critical vendors and establish clear protocols for addressing compromised components.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

While the federal government has an important role in providing actionable threat intelligence, cybersecurity must not become an excuse for expensive, rigid mandates. Security frameworks should remain risk-based, practical and focused on resilience.

Data centers as grid assets

The relationship between utilities and data centers should not be one-way. With the right investments, large computing facilities can help improve grid flexibility. Some AI training workloads can be shifted to off-peak hours, allowing operators to reduce consumption during periods of high demand.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Furthermore, battery storage and appropriately designed onsite generation can provide grid stability during emergencies, turning data centers into strategic assets that strengthen, rather than strain, America's energy future.

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.

• Microsoft offered a buyout to 60,000 employees this week.
• The offer spooked the tech industry and stoked chatter and concern inside the company.
• The key question: How many employees Microsoft is prepared to lose?

Microsoft's huge employee buyout stunned the industry this week, raising urgent questions about why the software giant might want so many people to leave.

Inside the company, concerned staff debated the meaning of the move. Why might Microsoft want to shed 60,000 workers? Will roles be replaced by AI? Are more layoffs ahead?

Business Insider spent recent days speaking with Microsoft insiders to find out what's really happening. The people asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters.

The main takeaway so far is that Microsoft seems to have unnecessarily spooked employees with the sheer size of its buyout offer, leaving leaders scrambling to calm the troops.

Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood in an internal memo explained the offer was intended to "offer employees agency if they choose to leave the company on their own terms" and said the company expected "very few people" to accept.

Microsoft doubled down later and told Business Insider it anticipates 3,000 or fewer employees will take the buyout. That's only about 5%, or less, of those eligible.

Layoff concerns

Earlier this year, the company offered a retirement buyout to employees based on age and tenure. About one-third accepted.

Soon after, Microsoft did another round of layoffs. Some employees who didn't accept the retirement offer ended up losing their jobs.

That's led to speculation that more layoffs may come in the wake of this week's bigger buyout offer.

"Future workforce needs will continue to be based on business needs and priorities," Microsoft said in a statement.

Misconceptions and differences

Business Insider spoke to Microsoft executives who said there are misconceptions about the current buyout offer.

These executives could only speak about their own teams, and they were hesitant to definitively say layoffs aren't coming. However, they pointed out a few differences between the current buyouts and the retirement offer.

"Microsoft doesn't want to shrink by 60,000 people," one executive said, while asking not to be identified. "We are not replacing everyone with AI."

This person thinks Microsoft made latest buyout offer because some employees complained that they weren't eligible for the retirement buyout earlier this year.

And in the case of the retirement buyout, when employees left, Microsoft didn't fill those roles — the headcount went away.

This week's buyout works differently. In some cases, when staff leave this time their roles will be backfilled with new hires.

Why the latest buyout looks so big

One reason the latest buyout looks so huge: Some leaders decided it would be simpler to offer it to their entire organization, rather than try to pick which specific teams or individuals should be included.

"It's easier to opt-in giant organizations," one Microsoft executive told Business Insider.

Charles Lamanna, the executive in charge of the Copilot Platform, AI agents, Office and Word, decided to offer it to everyone in his organization, one of the people said. That includes many people in critical positions. The organization is prepared to backfill roles if any of those critical employees accept the buyout, this person said.

The Cloud + AI group took a different approach

Microsoft's key Cloud + AI division took a slightly different approach, according to another executive from the company.

Two teams — Azure Hardware Systems and Infrastructure and Cloud Operations + Innovation teams — decided not to offer the latest buyout to staff.

Most other groups within the Cloud + AI division did offer the buyout to employees. And this division can backfill some roles, this executive told Business Insider.

Cutting costs and avoiding layoffs

Backfilling roles could still help Microsoft cut labor costs. One executive at the company said if a senior person were to leave, they would likely backfill the role with someone more junior who would potentially be paid less. A Microsoft spokesperson said that's not an official company position.

If all this seems overly complex, compared to layoffs, there may be a reason: Microsoft has been under fire for cutting American staff while employing foreign workers.

The Trump administration recently suspended Microsoft from a federal program that sponsors foreign workers for permanent residency, accusing the company of laying off American employees while hiring lower-paid foreign workers. Microsoft has denied those claims.

"Never say never, but there's a lot of desire not to do big layoffs, especially as an American company," one of the Microsoft executives told Business Insider.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at astewart@businessinsider.com or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

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

• Once experimental tech, AI turrets are now becoming an "integral part of air defense" in Ukraine's war.
• These are guns that can detect and lock onto targets by calculating speed and trajectory.
• Ukraine has deployed over a dozen of these and is looking to surge their production and use.

Ukraine is using machine gun turrets controlled by artificial intelligence in battle, and they're working well enough that Kyiv wants to roll them out at a faster pace.

While Ukraine began revealing prototypes of these systems last year, Brave1, the country's defense innovation platform, said on Thursday that they've now become "an integral part of air defense" for its forces.

"In the last month alone, automated turrets have destroyed dozens of enemy drones over Kyiv," Brave1 said, adding that it started work on these weapons in 2024 as experimental technology.

Not much is publicly known about the core capabilities of these turrets, such as their range or how their software works, but they've primarily been described as an air defense tool against Russian drones.

The idea is that artificial intelligence helps the turret detect, acquire, and track a target, making it more accurate than human operators at engaging high-speed air targets such as jet-powered Gerans.

More than a dozen such systems are now deployed in the Kyiv area, with another eight planned for the region, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in early October.

In a sign that Ukraine plans to lean further into the technology, Zelenskyy later praised the systems further, saying on October 19 that AI-powered turrets have "proven highly effective against shaheds."

"We are increasing orders, and it is important to accelerate every process as much as possible — organizational, financial, and production-related," Zelenskyy said.

One such system, the Sky Sentinel, is a .50-cal M2 Browning turret developed and operated by private air defense firm Carmine Sky. It can spin 360 degrees and lock onto a target while firing by calculating speed and trajectory.

Each one costs about $150,000, a Ukrainian commander told Business Insider's Jake Epstein last summer, and can distinguish between birds and drones. The turret still requires a human operator to authorize when to fire, the commander said.

Brave1 released a montage on Thursday indicating that Ukraine is also fielding other types of automated turrets, showcasing clips of several designs.

It said turrets had shot down at least 60 targets under its Private Air Defense Project, a pilot that allows private Ukrainian firms to buy air defense equipment and train civilian staff to use them against drones threatening factories, warehouses, and other important sites.

Notably, Brave1 said these turrets took down Russian Geran-5s and Banderols — jet-powered drones and cruise missiles that can reach speeds of 375 to 400 mph.

A similar claim was made by Yuriy Ihnat, the Ukrainian air force's spokesperson, in early October, when he said that AI-powered turrets had shot down Russian jet-powered drones for the first time. Ihnat did not say which system was used.

Kyiv has eagerly integrated AI into much of its war effort, using machine learning models for other functions, such as predicting enemy drone strikes and autonomously conducting supply runs with robotic buggies.

The turrets do have limited range, making them more useful as a final defense against drones or against low-flying targets.

They'll likely be one of several tools Ukraine is developing to counter Russian jet-powered threats.

Over the last few months, the Kremlin has been ramping up production and deployment of cheap cruise missiles or drones equipped with turbojet engines. These weapons, flying at nearly half the speed of sound and launched by the thousands every month, have become a major challenge for Ukrainian air defenses.

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.