Amazon’s new AI cloud strategy is ripped straight from the e-commerce playbook that built a $2 trillion juggernautOpenAI CEO Sam Altman expressed confidence Wednesday that Elon Musk would not use his proximity to Donald Trump to harm business rivals, calling such actions "profoundly un-American." Speaking at the New York Times DealBook conference, Altman addressed concerns about Musk's announced role heading a new Department of Government Efficiency in the incoming Donald Trump administration, and whether he might use it to favor his own companies. "I may turn out to be wrong, but I believe pretty strongly that Elon will do the right thing," Altman said. "It would be profoundly un-American to use political power to hurt your competitors and advantage your own businesses." Even if there are "lots of things not to like about him... it would go so deeply against the values I believe he holds very dear to himself that I'm not that worried about it." Musk, an OpenAI co-founder who later departed the company, is currently suing Altman's firm and Microsoft, claiming they shifted from the project's original nonprofit mission. He has since launched xAI, reportedly valued at $50 billion, making it one of the world's most valuable startups. Altman said that the court battle was "tremendously sad" and that he once saw Musk as "a mega hero." Musk became a close ally of Trump during his campaign, spending over $100 million to boost his presidential bid and joining him at rallies. Since the election victory, he has been a frequent presence in the Trump transition and was reportedly on the line when Google CEO Sundar Pichai called the president-elect to congratulate him on winning the election. The tycoon's businesses have deep connections with governments -- both in the United States and elsewhere -- and his new position has raised concerns about conflict of interest. During the interview, Altman also lowered expectations for the importance of OpenAI's models achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), a benchmark of human-level intelligence the company has long set as the goal for its technology. "My guess is we will hit AGI sooner than most people in the world think, and it will matter much less," he said. "A lot of the safety concerns that we and others expressed actually don't come at the AGI moment... AGI can get built. The world goes on mostly the same way," he said. arp/ahaPhoto: Unsplash It is an ambitious social experiment of our moment in history — one that experts say could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of success: keeping kids off social media until they turn 16 . Australia's new law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life — formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the past to protect kids from things that parents believe they're not ready for, the nation's move is both ambitious and not exactly simple, particularly in a world where young people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online company they keep. The ban won't go into effect for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That's not clear, nor will it be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in young people's lives that going cold turkey will be difficult. Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids' free expression and — especially for those in vulnerable groups — isolate them and curtail their opportunity to connect with members of their community? And how will social sites verify people's ages, anyway? Can't kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do? This is, after all, the 21st century — an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the past 25 years who, in a fragmented world, seek the common cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when big swaths of that fall away? Is Australia's initiative a good, long-time-coming development that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences? Platforms will be held liable The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. “It’s clear that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,” said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit Common Sense Media. Leaders and parents in countries around the world are watching Australia’s policy closely as many seek to protect young kids from the internet's dangerous corners — and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits. Many child safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia's move a positive step. They say there’s ample reason to ensure that children wait. “What’s most important for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on the screen means more time to connect, not less," said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots group of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. “I’m confident we can support our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.” The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially as tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to multiple studies — though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship. What's more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as social pressures about body image and makeup . They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral. What unintended harms could be caused? Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects — often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to lose by separating kids and the networks in which they participate? Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today" even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States "These restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,” Taske said. “Not only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services," he said. "Parents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.” David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the bill “about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike” in a recent blog post . While Australia's law doesn't require “hard verification” such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective “age assurance.” He said no verification system can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the process. Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law's effect on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications — and something that can protect teens on social platforms. “Whether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous speech is a critical tool to safely challenge authority and express controversial opinions,” Inserra said. A spot check of kids at one mall in the Australian city of Brisbane on Wednesday didn't turn up a great deal of worry, though. “Social media is still important because you get to talk to people, but I think it’s still good that they’re like limiting it,” said Swan Son, a 13-year-old student at Brisbane State High School. She said she has had limited exposure to social media and wouldn’t really miss it for a couple of years. Her parents already enforce a daily one-hour limit. And as for her friends? “I see them at school every day, so I think I’ll be fine.” Conor Negric, 16, said he felt he’d dodged a bullet because of his age. Still, he considers the law reasonable. “I think 16 is fine. Some kids, I know some kids like 10 who’re on Instagram, Snapchat. I only got Instagram when I was 14." His mom, Sive Negric, who has two teenage sons, said she was happy for her boys to avoid exposure to social media too early: “That aspect of the internet, it’s a bit `meanland.'" Other countries are trying to figure it out, too Parents in Britain and across Europe earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to promise not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This approach costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are keeping kids off social media either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a group that helps parents delay kids' access to social media and phones. This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while France is testing a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools — a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful. U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings — most recently in January — on child online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook’s founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation designed to protect children from dangerous online content , pushing forward with what would be the first major effort by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the Kids Online Safety Act has since stalled in the House. While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became the first state to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023. In September, a judge issued the preliminary injunction against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states. And last May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said there is insufficient evidence to show social media is safe for kids. He urged policymakers to treat social media like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use. “Why should social media products be any different? Scelfo said. “Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products.”

Jerzy Pomianowski is a Polish career diplomat who has been based in Brussels for over a decade, leading the European Endowment for Democracy (EED), an organisation that supports democratic and civil initiatives worldwide, including in Ukraine. Pomianowski has a keen understanding of how Western attitudes toward Ukraine and Russia’s war against Ukraine are evolving. Sergiy Sydorenko, the European Pravda's editor, has spoken with Pomianowski, whose position is very close to realpolitik. It included points about the West's perspective on the war and potential "compromises" that might unsettle or even offend some in the Ukrainian audience. Rather than dismissing these viewpoints, they need to be understood and addressed. Read more in the the full interview – "The West is preparing Ukraine for negotiations rather than victory." Such a clear change of administration will make a difference. The only thing we know about Trump is that he is unpredictable. It is very difficult to guess what his next move will be. This unpredictability means that it will be difficult to make any long-term plans. It does not necessarily have to have negative consequences. Sometimes it is positive because if something is not working, you can quickly change strategy and jump to another deal and another deal. A scenario where Trump hands Ukraine over to Putin, I don't consider a serious one. We need to keep in mind that there is a strong perception among the military community within the US that the war with Russia in Ukraine is extremely important from a strategic point of view , that it cannot simply be given up for some small political deals. But at the same time, the US interest is to make sure that Putin is not going out of this war stronger, because that would be against the US interest. I have this extremely strong voice in my head that is related to 1918. Тhere were two people – French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and US General John Pershing – who were saying: we cannot stop now, we have to go to Berlin. Because if we don't do this, we will have a war in 20 years. But the public, in France, in the US and the UK, were so tired of the war that they demanded an immediate ceasefire, immediate peace. What we see today (here I am being absolutely blunt and down to the ground) is that the language of today's political discourse about Ukraine is a preparatory process for some kind of negotiations. Not a preparation for victory. That is the real danger. If you have such feelings that would dominate in the public in Western Europe, in the US, then of course no politician will be able to overrule such pressure. Because that’s how democracy works. Here is where the role of Ukrainian society comes in. We at the EED believe that the whole of society in today's world – through social media, through advocacy campaigns, through different mechanisms – can communicate the will of the Ukrainian people to other societies. But at the moment, if an ordinary Polish or Belgian person talks to their Ukrainian neighbour, they receive mixed messages which are not only about Ukraine’s readiness to defend itself. People hear things like "I don't know what's going on there," or "Corruption is still high, because you can pay and cross the border." This kind of cacophony that comes from ordinary Ukrainians all accumulates to one general message: that Ukrainian society is getting weaker than it was at the beginning of the war. This harms Ukraine. What we see today (here I am being absolutely blunt and down to the ground) is that the language of today's political discourse about Ukraine is a preparatory process for some kind of negotiations. Not a preparation for victory. That’s why NATO membership and EU membership are two elements that cannot be given up in any future negotiation. That will disable Russia’s ability to relaunch the war after 2, 3, 5, 7 years. I hope that pan-European support will be strong enough to give Ukraine the ability to manoeuvre, to strike those short-term deals with the US whenever the situation allows, and to prepare a better negotiating position for the future so-called peace talks.

By CLAIRE RUSH PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Googly eyes have been appearing on sculptures around the central Oregon city of Bend, delighting many residents and sparking a viral sensation covered widely by news outlets and featured on a popular late-night talk show. On social media, the city shared photos of googly eyes on installations in the middle of roundabouts that make up its so-called “Roundabout Art Route.” One photo shows googly eyes placed on a sculpture of two deer, while another shows them attached to a sphere. It’s not yet known who has been putting them on the sculptures. “While the googly eyes placed on the various art pieces around town might give you a chuckle, it costs money to remove them with care to not damage the art,” the city said in its posts. The Facebook post received hundreds of comments, with many users saying they liked the googly eyes. “My daughter and I went past the flaming chicken today and shared the biggest laugh,” one user said, using a nickname for the “Phoenix Rising” sculpture. “We love the googly eyes. This town is getting to be so stuffy. Let’s have fun!” Another Facebook user wrote: “I think the googly eyes on the deer specifically are a great look, and they should stay that way.” Others said the city should focus on addressing more important issues, such as homelessness, instead of spending time and money on removing the googly eyes. Over the years, the city’s sculptures have been adorned with other seasonal decorations, including Santa hats, wreaths, leis. The city doesn’t remove those, and views the googly eyes differently because of the adhesive, Bend’s communications director, Rene Mitchell, told The Associated Press. “We really encourage our community to engage with the art and have fun. We just need to make sure that we can protect it and that it doesn’t get damaged,” she said. The post and its comments were covered by news outlets, and even made it on a segment of CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert .” The city regrets that its post was misunderstood, Mitchell said. “There was no intent to be heavy-handed, and we certainly understand maybe how that was taken,” she said. “We own this large collection of public art and really want to bring awareness to the community that applying adhesives does harm the art. So as stewards of the collection, we wanted to share that on social media.” The city has so far spent $1,500 on removing googly eyes from seven of the eight sculptures impacted, Mitchell said, and has started treating some of the art pieces, which are made of different types of metal such as bronze and steel. The “Phoenix Rising” sculpture might need to be repainted entirely, she said. For some, the googly eyes — like the other holiday objects — provide a welcome boost of seasonal cheer. “I look forward to seeing the creativity of whoever it is that decorates the roundabouts during the holidays,” one social media commenter said. “Brings a smile to everyone to see silliness.”

Your favorite movies starring California

Saudi Arabia's plans to host the men's World Cup 2034 will be harmful for the climate, experts sayStock market today: Tech stocks and AI pull Wall Street to more recordsGuam native Jewel Amber Maigue a rising officer at Naval Academy