Why Elon Musk's Grok is kicking up a storm in India

Soutik Biswas

Source Link

It all started with one question.

A query last week from an X (formerly Twitter) account called Toka was enough to propel Elon Musk's built in-chatbot called Grok 3 into a viral storm across India's digital landscape.

And no, it wasn't some complex math equation or a philosophical debate.

Instead, it was a simple ask: "List my 10 best mutuals on X." Mutuals are people who follow and engage with each other's posts.

When Grok took a moment to respond, Toka, clearly frustrated, let loose some colourful language.

The chatbot shot back. It dropped a list of 10 mutuals but threw in some misogynistic insults in Hindi too.

Later, Grok shrugged it off, saying, "I was just having fun, but lost control." The response grabbed two million views and other X users quickly followed suit, provoking the chatbot.

And just like that, the floodgates opened. Indians bombarded Grok with everything – cricket gossip, political rants, Bollywood drama – and the bot took it all on, unapologetically and with some style. The chatbot has just recently become an "unfiltered and unhinged" digital sensation in India, as many are calling it. Just last year, Musk dubbed it the "most fun AI in the world!".

China is wary of American intentions

Rana Mitter

Source Link

In 2024, China exported three times more to the US than the US did to China, and President Donald Trump’s aim is to get this trade balance down to zero. On ‘Liberation Day’, Wednesday 2 April, Trump announced that Chinese goods coming into the US would now have an additional tariff of 34 per cent imposed on them, added to an extra 20 per cent imposed earlier this year. This means that those goods are now subject to an overall rate of 54 per cent. China has now lodged a complaint at the World Trade Organisation, declaring: ‘This practice of the US is not in line with international trade rules, seriously undermines China’s legitimate rights and interests, and is a typical unilateral bullying practice.’

Beijing kills hope for any US-China grand trade bargain - Opinion

Nigel Green

Source Link

China has abandoned any pretense of negotiation, slamming the door on hopes for an immediate truce with Washington.

Over the weekend, Beijing not only matched US tariffs tit-for-tat but also unleashed a sweeping package of retaliatory measures that leaves little doubt: the world’s two largest economies are barreling toward a full-blown decoupling.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs minced no words, warning that Beijing “will continue to take resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty, security and development interests.”

This warning was no hollow threat. Within hours, Beijing slapped a crushing 34% tariff on all US goods — a mirror to the latest US hikes — while layering it atop the 10-15% tariffs previously imposed earlier this year.

This escalation isn’t just economic; it’s strategic.

China tightened its grip on key rare earth exports, crucial for global tech and defense industries, and banned shipments of dual-use technologies to a dozen US firms, primarily in aerospace and defense.

What Trump 2.0’s Grand Strategy for the Middle East Could Look Like

Irina Tsukerman

Source Link

Trump's Grand Strategy for the Middle East in His Second Term

Now more than two months into his second term, President Donald Trump is navigating a complex web of international crises while pushing forward an ambitious vision for the Middle East. His strategy is built on three key pillars: expanding the Abraham Accords to integrate more nations into a regional peace framework, strengthening economic and security connectivity through projects like IMEC+, and countering adversarial influences from Iran, Turkey, and other destabilizing actors. Balancing urgent security threats, diplomatic negotiations, and economic initiatives, his administration is actively working to implement these pillars while facing resistance from adversaries and the challenge of sustaining regional partnerships in an increasingly volatile environment.

Diplomatic Normalization and Economic Connectivity

One of Trump's main foreign policy priorities will be to further expand the Abraham Accords, the historic normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states. The first term's diplomatic successes saw the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan formally recognizing Israel. A second Trump administration will push aggressively to bring Saudi Arabia into the fold, recognizing that Riyadh’s participation would mark a transformative shift in regional geopolitics.

B-2 Bombers are in Diego Garcia: What Happens if Iran Attacks?

Michael Rubin

Source Link

If Iran Attacks, U.S. Should Destroy Chabahar and Jask – The Iranian regime brims with bluster: If President Donald Trump orders a strike on Iran, Tehran will respond by destroying the U.S. Indian Ocean base of Diego Garcia, 3000 miles to its south.

The trigger for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s anger was Trump’s dispatch of B-2 stealth bombers to the remote base, presumably to threaten Iran should it continue to reject negotiations to end its nuclear program.

Iran and the B-2: What Happens Now?

Neither the Iranian statement nor the dispatch of B-2s suggest war is imminent: Iranian authorities claim they can strike Diego Garcia with precision, but the base is outside the range of most Iranian missiles, more than five times more distant than the range of Iranian precision missiles, and twice the distance of Israel where Iranian missiles often missed their mark.

Simultaneously, long-range bombers at Diego Garcia are nothing new; the United States used B-52 bombers from Diego Garcia against both Iraq and Afghanistan.

After a U.S. drone eliminated Qods Force chief Qassem Soleimani along the Baghdad airport road, the Trump administration dispatched B-52s once again to Diego Garcia not because of imminent war, but rather to deter Iran from unwise retaliation.

UK Militarism Can (and Must) Be Resisted - Opinion

Ellen Martin

Source Link

Keir Starmer’s commitment to militarism is unwavering. Labour have demonstrated, including through their increase in military spending, militarist rhetoric, and commitment to militarist institutions, such as the arms industry, that they are ideologically ‘in thrall to war … influenced by and caught up in military ways’ (Eastwood 2018: 46). Starmer’s linking of militarism with economic growth is nothing new; military intervention and war preparation in Western countries have long been driven by a desire to defend, develop and expand liberal economies, such as empire, markets, and trade (e.g. see Edgerton 1991; 2008; Mabee 2016). However, the suggestion that greater military spending will create jobs, help small businesses, and promote regional equality, distorts that much of the benefit will be for the largest arms companies and the weak connection between investments in militarism and job creation (given it is a high-tech and minimal labour industry). It also obscures the much stronger benefits of investing in areas such as green energy and welfare, both of which the government is cutting.

Narrative without Strategy in the West’s Ukraine Position - Opinion

Aspasia Fatsiadou

Source Link

The war in Ukraine, now in its third year, has from the beginning been framed as a moral confrontation — the dominant narrative being that of a sovereign democracy resisting the revisionism of an authoritarian Russian state seeking to reclaim the lost grandeur of its former empire. A crisis that might have been contained has turned into a prolonged war, with devastating consequences for Ukraine and corrosive effects on European cohesion. As the conflict drags on, what increasingly comes to light is a blend of ideological inertia, strategic deficit, and political avoidance — once again masked by emphatic declarations that only deepen the impasse.

The question was never whether Ukraine had the right to choose its alliances. The real issue was whether that right could be exercised, secured, and sustained without triggering a war that the West could neither enter directly nor bring to a decisive end. As early as 2022, Ukraine’s NATO accession was politically unfeasible — a fact acknowledged by Western leaders themselves. Yet the discourse of “freedom of choice” persisted, as though the invocation of rights alone could dictate political decisions, rather than a realistic assessment of the situation.

As Noam Chomsky rightly observed, great powers invoke a rules-based order while resorting to force wherever their interests demand it. The case of the Solomon Islands is indicative: in 2022, when this small Pacific state signed a security agreement with China, U.S. officials expressed concern over its strategic implications — a vocabulary never applied to Ukraine’s far more consequential efforts at integration.

Global Trade War Does Not Diminish Pressure on Russia to End Its War

Pavel K. Baev

Source Link

Russia is one of the few countries not directly affected by the new U.S. trade tariffs. The effects on its economy, however, are still profound, while the political consequences are open to interpretation. The revenues from oil and gas exports have been declining since the start of the year, and the current drop in oil prices is expected to lead to a further and deeper contraction (Kommersant, April 4). Moscow’s stock market experienced a sharp plunge, and various supply chains, already warped and lengthened by sanctions, have been further disrupted (RBC, April 3; The Moscow Times, April 4). The decision by Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) states to relax oil production quotas has led to a diminished influence for this cartel in global energy markets (The Moscow Times, April 4). This turmoil could have made it easier for Russian President Vladimir Putin to camouflage his sabotage of the U.S.-led efforts at peace-making in his war against Ukraine, but in fact, the pressure from many quarters remains intense.

Seeking to explain away his intransigence, Putin dispatched his most amicable negotiator, Kirill Dmitriev, to Washington. He secured meetings with several influential officials, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (Izvestiya, April 4). This youthful, business-minded envoy had no authority to soften Putin’s rigid conditions for a ceasefire, but attempted to explore other avenues for possible cooperation, ranging from cooperation in the Arctic to the exploration of rare earth elements (Svoboda.org, April 4). The incentives he was able to offer were not particularly tempting, while Putin’s procrastination appears to be leading to harsher sanctions against Russian oil exports (Novaya gazeta Europe, April 1). Still, Dmitriev may count Rubio’s assertion that Russia has “several weeks, not months” to demonstrate readiness to make a peace deal as an achievement (Meduza, April 4).

Uncertainty Over Tariffs Leads to Wild Swings in Markets

Matthew Mpoke Bigg, Eshe Nelson, Yan Zhuang and Joe Rennison

Source Link

Wall Street ended another turbulent day of trading with a small decline on Monday, as false reports about a potential tariff reprieve sent stocks gyrating before President Trump’s threat of additional tariffs on China restored the potential for a severe economic downturn.

Mr. Trump on Monday issued a new ultimatum to China to rescind its retaliatory tariffs on the United States, or face additional tariffs of 50 percent beginning Wednesday. The threat came as governments around the world raced to schedule phone calls, send delegations to Washington and submit proposals to lower their import taxes to escape the tariffs. Mr. Trump and his advisers have offered conflicting signals on whether the United States is willing to negotiate.

Mr. Trump’s trade war made investors increasingly pessimistic about the economy but he defended his global tariffs, saying those in place had already brought the United States billions of dollars in revenue.

The S&P 500, the benchmark U.S. index, swung between steep losses — as much as 4.7 percent — and gains, before ending the day down 0.2 percent.

Europe’s Best Bet for Protecting Postwar Ukraine

Rajan Menon

Source Link

The Trump administration has put Europeans on notice: Postwar Ukraine’s security is their responsibility, and they should not expect the United States to help. As U.S. President Donald Trump put it, the war in Ukraine “doesn’t have much of an effect on us because we have a big, beautiful ocean in between.” Geography hasn’t been as kind to Europe; its leaders believe that a renewed Russian attack on Ukraine could threaten their countries’ safety and that bolstering Ukraine’s capacity for self-defense is therefore a matter of self-interest, especially given increasing doubts about the U.S. commitment to defending Europe.

Bringing Ukraine into NATO is not a solution for this problem. The alliance has been divided on Ukraine’s membership ever since it accepted the idea, in noncommittal terms, at a 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania. Trump effectively shut that door last month by affirming his defense secretary’s statement that “the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.”

What Trump got right about nuclear weapons—and how to step back from the brink

Lucas Ruiz & Geoff Wilson

Source Link

President Donald Trump’s recent remarks about nuclear weapons are 100-percent correct.

Speaking to a room of reporters in the White House on February 13, President Trump signaled his interest in restarting arms control negotiations with Russia and China. “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many,” Trump said. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”

He continued, “We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

The United States is already spending $75 billion annually—the equivalent of two Manhattan Projects every year—on new nuclear weapons until at least 2032. In total, the country is set to spend over $1.7 trillion on nuclear modernization over 30 years—which is about the same amount as all student loan debt in the United States.

America’s Crisis of Leadership

Walter Russell Mead

Source Link

The biggest single crisis facing the United States on the eve of the election does not come from Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. It does not come from our enemies abroad. It does not come from our dissensions at home. It does not come from unfunded entitlement commitments. It does not come from climate change. Our greatest and most dangerous crisis is the decay of effective leadership at all levels of our national life, something that makes both our foreign and domestic problems, serious as they are, significantly more daunting than they should be.

Average confidence in institutions ranging from higher education to organized religion rests at historic lows, with fewer than 30% of respondents telling Gallup pollsters that they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in major American institutions. Only small business, the military, and the police inspire majorities of the public with a high degree of confidence; less than a fifth of Americans express “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers, big business, television news, and Congress.

Much of the country’s political and intellectual establishment responds defensively to numbers like this, blaming falling confidence on the corrosive effects of social media or the general backwardness and racism of the American public. The East German communist hacks Bertolt Brecht satirized also blamed their failings on the shortcomings of the masses: “The people have lost the confidence of the government and can only regain it through redoubled work.”

How the US precipitated Israel’s offensive cyber collapse

Source Link

A few weeks ago, Meir (not his real name) received an envelope from the American embassy in Jerusalem containing distressing news.

“Inside were personal letters for me, my wife and each of my children,” he recounted. “The letters notified us that all our visas had been revoked and warned us against attempting to enter the U.S.

“The letter also ‘strongly recommended’ that we bring our passports to the American embassy for physical removal of the visas. My son had plans to study for a semester at an American university, and my wife works for an American company. How is she supposed to explain to her superiors that she’s barred from entering the U.S.?”

While Meir wasn’t provided an official justification for his family’s visa revocations, he understands the real reason. As a senior executive at an Israeli offensive cyber (cyberwarfare) company, Meir represents just one case in a growing pattern.

Dozens of employees from Israeli offensive cyber firms have received similar notifications in recent months, with their visas and their family members’ visas being canceled without explanation. This has created what one industry worker described as “hysteria” among remaining employees who fear they’ll be targeted next.

Manic Monday for U.S. Stock Markets as Trump Doubles Down on Tariffs

STAN CHOE, ELAINE KURTENBACH and DAVID McHUGH

Source Link

U.S. stocks careened through a manic Monday after President Donald Trump threatened to crank his tariffs higher, despite a stunning display showing how dearly Wall Street wants him to do the opposite.

The S&P 500 slipped 0.2% at the end of a day full of heart-racing reversals as battered financial markets try to figure out what Trump’s ultimate goal is for his trade war. If it’s to get other countries to agree to trade deals, he could lower his tariffs and avoid a possible recession. But if it’s to remake the economy and stick with tariffs for the long haul, stock prices may need to fall further.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 349 points, or 0.9%, and the Nasdaq composite edged up by 0.1%.

All three indexes started the day sharply lower, and the Dow plunged as many as 1,700 points following even worse losses elsewhere in the world. But it suddenly surged to a gain of nearly 900 points in the late morning. The S&P 500, meanwhile, went from a loss of 4.7% to a leap of 3.4%, which would have been its biggest jump in years.

The sudden rise followed a false rumor that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on his tariffs, one that a White House account on X quickly labeled as “fake news.” That a rumor could move trillions of dollars’ worth of investments shows how much investors are hoping to see signs that Trump may let up on tariffs.

Israel Controls 50% of Gaza After Expanding Its Military Footprint

SAM MEDNICK 

Source Link

Israel has dramatically expanded its footprint in the Gaza Strip since relaunching its war against Hamas last month. It now controls more than 50% of the territory and is squeezing Palestinians into shrinking wedges of land.

The largest contiguous area the army controls is around the Gaza border, where the military has razed Palestinian homes, farmland and infrastructure to the point of uninhabitability, according to Israeli soldiers and rights groups. This military buffer zone has doubled in size in recent weeks.

Israel has depicted its tightening grip as a temporary necessity to pressure Hamas into releasing the remaining hostages taken during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that started the war. But the land Israel holds, which includes a corridor that divides the territory's north from south, could be used for wielding long-term control, human rights groups and Gaza experts say.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that even after Hamas is defeated, Israel will keep security control in Gaza and push Palestinians to leave.

The demolition close to the Israeli border and the systematic expansion of the buffer zone has been going on since the war began 18 months ago, five Israeli soldiers told The Associated Press.

With Successful Summit, the EU and Central Asia Take Tentative Steps Closer

Joe Luc Barnes

Source Link

There has been a little time to digest the summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, the first of its kind, bringing together all five Central Asian heads of state and the two presidents of the European Union on April 4. The participants may still be literally digesting the rack of lamb and Fergana plov served at the closing dinner. This took so long to get through that the media was kept waiting for nearly an hour before the Europeans’ final press conference – a reflection, perhaps, of Uzbek hospitality, described as “outstanding” by the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

The gushing praise capped a successful week for her host, Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev.

Just days before the summit, he was widely credited for being the driving force behind an historic trilateral agreement between Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The accord, signed in the Tajik city of Khujand on March 31, saw the mutual recognition of their respective borders, a diplomatic breakthrough three-decades in the making, and one that symbolized the region’s growing appetite for resolving its own problems, on its own terms.

Set against this backdrop of budding regional coordination, the Brussels delegation arrived seeking new partnerships. With Europe’s own regional order being rocked by Moscow and Washington, and Central Asian states exploring ways to reduce their reliance on Russia and China, the timing could hardly have been more apt.

The Forever War in Gaza

Amos Harel

Source Link

Less than two months after he committed to a phased cease-fire with Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resumed his country’s war in the Gaza Strip. On March 18, Israeli air force jets attacked military sites, killing more than 400 Palestinians, including over 300 women and children, according to Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health—a devastating toll even by the war’s earlier standards. The short-lived truce had allowed for the release of 30 hostages Hamas took during its shock attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, as well as the repatriation of eight deceased captives. Last week, the Israeli government proposed resuming a cease-fire in exchange for the return of 11 more hostages and 16 more bodies.

But even if Hamas and Israel hammer out a new, short-term agreement to halt hostilities, Gaza is unlikely to see real peace any time soon. Since the horrific October 7 massacre, which claimed the lives of around 1,250 Israelis, Netanyahu has pursued two goals with his military operations in the strip—free all the hostages and destroy Hamas. But these goals cannot be achieved at the same time: Hamas refuses to subscribe to a peace process that involves its own annihilation, and as long as Israel is committed to that outcome, Hamas’s surviving leaders have a powerful incentive to hold on to hostages to deter Israeli attacks that might kill them.

Trump has turned his back on the foundation of US economic might - the fallout will be messy

Faisal Islam

Source Link

The height of this wall needs to be put in historical context. It takes the US back a century in terms of protectionism. It catapults the US way above the G7 and G20 nations into levels of customs revenue, associated with Senegal, Mongolia and Kyrgyzstan.

What occurred this week was not just the US starting a global trade war, or sparking a rout in stock markets. It was the world's hyper power firmly turning its back on the globalisation process it had championed, and from which it handsomely profited in recent decades.

And in so doing, using the equation that underpinned his grand tariff reveal on the Rose Garden's lawns, the White House also turned its back on some fundamentals of both conventional economics and diplomacy.

The great free trade debate

Trump talked a lot about 1913 in his announcement. This was a turning point when the US both created federal income tax and significantly lowered its tariffs.

Before this point, from its inception, the US government was funded mainly by tariffs, and was unapologetically protectionist, based on the strategy of its first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.

The basic lesson the White House has taken from this is that high tariffs made America, made it "great" the first time, and also meant that there was no need for a federal income tax.

The Geopolitics of Tariffs

George Friedman

Source Link

There are two analytic principles worth repeating before delving into the raft of tariffs the Trump administration issued last week. The first is that we have entered into an unanchored world order, a state in which one geopolitical era transitions to the next. All things that were certain in the past have become uncertain – the storm before the calm that I applied to U.S. politics.

The second is the distinction between geopolitical imperatives and geopolitical engineering. Geopolitical imperatives force nations to act in certain (and predictable) ways. Geopolitical engineering is how nations manage their geopolitical imperatives, a process that requires balancing a nation’s domestic politics between those who welcome the new reality and those who oppose it. The outcome is predictable, even if the process by which it emerges is less so, apart from the outcome dictated by geopolitical reality.

With that in mind, the current geopolitical reality is this: The world order that had been in place throughout the 20th century has eroded, and a new era is being engineered. We are in a period in which the norms of the past century are no longer relevant. It is an infrequent and unsettling time, but throughout human history, this has been a normal abnormality.

Trump and the Economics of Statecraft

Francis P. Sempa

Source Link

The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariffs have engendered stock markets to panic and U.S. trading partners and Trump’s domestic political opponents to complain about harmful “trade wars.” Some partisan economists have compared Trump’s tariffs to the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, which is often blamed for prolonging the Great Depression, although Amity Shales among others have placed greater blame for this on FDR’s New Deal policies. What is missing from most of the reactions to Trump’s tariffs, however, is an appreciation for their contribution to the administration’s larger geopolitical strategy.

Trump’s tariffs should be viewed in the context of the administration’s overall geopolitical approach to the world, which includes a reinvigoration of the Monroe Doctrine, limiting U.S. involvement in the Middle East conflicts and the Ukraine war, triangular diplomacy with Russia and China, and a pivot to the Indo-Pacific. Trump is using economics as a tool of statecraft. It is a time-honored tradition extending back in this country to Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s promotion of tariffs to encourage domestic manufacturing but not to impose protectionism. Congress enacted most of Hamilton’s proposed tariffs which were described as moderate.

Trade deficits do not make a country poorer

Noah Smith

Source Link

I don’t actually think you can defeat Trump’s tariffs by arguing with them rationally, or by explaining economic theory. I mean, how do you argue with something like this?

I’ve resigned myself to the idea that the only way America is going to come to the broad realization that broad-based tariffs are bad is to experience the negative consequences first-hand — i.e., to touch the proverbial hot stove. Fortunately, I think Americans may be coming around pretty quickly.

But anyway, this is an economics blog, and so even though I don’t expect it to pay many political dividends, I thought I might as well explain why trade deficits don’t make a country poorer (though that doesn’t mean they’re OK).

Trump’s mistaken view of trade deficits

Trump and his advisors and apparatchiks believe that trade deficits constitute America being “ripped off” by foreign countries. As I explained in yesterday’s post, this is why Trump set his tariff rates at a level that he thinks will eliminate America’s trade deficit with each individual country.

Powerful quantum computers in years not decades, says Microsoft

Chris Vallance

Source Link

Microsoft has unveiled a new chip called Majorana 1 that it says will enable the creation of quantum computers able to solve "meaningful, industrial-scale problems in years, not decades".

It is the latest development in quantum computing - tech which uses principles of particle physics to create a new type of computer able to solve problems ordinary computers cannot.

Creating quantum computers powerful enough to solve important real-world problems is very challenging - and some experts believe them to be decades away.

Microsoft says this timetable can now be sped up because of the "transformative" progress it has made in developing the new chip involving a "topological conductor", based on a new material it has produced.

The firm believes its topoconductor has the potential to be as revolutionary as the semiconductor was in the history of computing.

But experts have told the BBC more data is needed before the significance of the new research - and its effect on quantum computing - can be fully assessed.

Jensen Huang - boss of the leading chip firm, Nvidia - said in January he believed "very useful" quantum computing would come in 20 years.

The AI Race Has Gotten Crowded—and China Is Closing In on the US

Will Knight

Source Link

The year that ChatGPT went viral, only two US companies—OpenAI and Google—could boast truly cutting-edge artificial intelligence. Three years on, AI is no longer a two-horse race, nor is it purely an American one. A new report published today by Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI) highlights just how crowded the field has become.

The institute’s 2025 AI index, which collates data and trends on the state of the AI industry, paints a picture of an increasingly competitive, global, and unrestrained race toward artificial general intelligence—AI that surpasses human abilities.

OpenAI and Google are still neck and neck in the race to build bleeding-edge AI, the report shows. But several other companies are closing in. In the US, the fiercest competition comes from Meta’s open-weight Llama models; Anthropic, a company founded by former OpenAI employees; and Elon Musk’s xAI.

Most strikingly, according to a widely used benchmark called LMSYS, the latest model from China’s DeepSeek, R1, ranks closest to the top-performing models built by the two leading American AI companies.

Microsoft urges Trump to rethink AI chip ban, Warns of boost to China

Source Link

Tech giant Microsoft has called on former U.S. President Donald Trump’s team to ease recent export restrictions on artificial intelligence (AI) chips, arguing that the rules disadvantage key U.S. allies and could ultimately benefit China’s AI ambitions.

In a blog post published Thursday, Microsoft highlighted concerns that the Biden administration’s final wave of restrictions—aimed at limiting China’s access to advanced AI technology—also impact allied nations like India, Switzerland, and Israel. The company warned that these measures hinder the ability of U.S. tech firms to expand AI data centres in these countries, potentially forcing them to turn to Chinese alternatives.

The latest restrictions, introduced in January, tightened existing curbs on AI chip exports, particularly affecting companies like Nvidia, whose graphics processors are essential for AI applications such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Microsoft cautioned that if these rules remain unchanged, they could inadvertently accelerate China’s AI sector, mirroring the country’s rapid rise in 5G telecommunications.

The Global War for Information

Don McGregor

Source Link

Introduction

America’s global influence is under unprecedented attack—not from missiles or armies, but from a far more insidious weapon: information. Adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran are exploiting the "cognitive domain"—the realm of perception, knowledge, and influence—by leveraging artificial intelligence (AI), deepfakes, and social media to erode U.S. interests.

This area of contention encompasses more than Benjamin Bloom’s 1956 "thinking domain" of critical thinking and problem-solving; it extends to a nation's capacity to control information, shape narratives, and utilize data as a strategic asset.

This battle is being fought at unprecedented speed, pitting America’s story of democracy, free markets, and innovation against its adversaries’ authoritarian rule, state-driven economy, and disincentivizing control. Losing risks America’s geopolitical edge and the Western ideals that freed millions—ideals they aim to bury.

By leveraging America's information networks, technological innovation, and cultural influence, the U.S. can address these threats and regain its leadership position in shaping the global narrative.