PR in the Philippines

The idea that the U.S. shouldn't prioritize AI safety because China doesn't is a flawed premise influencing U.S. policy and tech circles. This thinking provides a convenient excuse for a dangerous race where Washington prioritizes outpacing Beijing in AI development over safety. The reasoning is that regulating AI would hinder the U.S. in the "AI race." It assumes China isn't focused on safety, so the U.S. should aggressively push forward, even if it means taking risks. This idea is not only inaccurate but also perilous. Ironically, China's approach to AI offers a valuable lesson: true progress requires control. Ding Xuexiang, a top Chinese tech official, stated at Davos in January 2025 that confident acceleration is impossible without a reliable braking system. Chinese leaders view safety as essential, not restrictive. AI safety is a significant political issue in China. In April, President Xi Jinping led a Politburo meeting focused on AI, highlighting "unprecedented" risks. China's national security strategy now includes AI safety alongside threats like pandemics and cyberattacks. Regulations mandate pre-deployment safety assessments for generative AI, and numerous non-compliant AI products have been removed from the market. In the first half of this year alone, China has introduced more national AI standards than in the previous three years combined. Additionally, the number of technical papers on advanced AI safety has significantly increased in China over the past year. However, the last time U.S. and Chinese leaders discussed AI risks was in 2023. In September, officials from both countries suggested resuming discussions "at an appropriate time," but no meeting occurred under the Biden Administration. It's uncertain whether the Trump Administration will continue these efforts, which is a missed opportunity. China is open to collaboration, initiating a bilateral AI dialogue with the United Kingdom in May 2025. Chinese scientists have actively contributed to international initiatives, like the AI Safety Institute's evaluations supported by 33 countries and intergovernmental bodies (including the U.S. and China) and the development of Global AI Safety Research Priorities. A crucial first step is to reactivate the suspended U.S.-China dialogue on AI risks. Without official communication channels, effective coordination is unlikely. China expressed willingness to continue discussions as the Biden Administration concluded. Prior talks led to a modest but symbolically important agreement: both nations affirmed that human control must be maintained over nuclear weapons. This channel holds potential for further advancement. Future discussions should concentrate on shared, high-stakes threats. OpenAI's recent assessment of its latest ChatGPT Agent indicates it has surpassed the "High Capability" threshold in the biological domain based on the company's standards. This suggests the agent could potentially assist users in creating dangerous biological weapons. Both the U.S. and China have a vested interest in preventing non-state actors from weaponizing AI. An AI-driven pandemic would disregard national boundaries. Furthermore, leading experts and Turing Award recipients from both the West and China have voiced concerns about advanced general-purpose AI systems potentially operating beyond human control, presenting catastrophic and existential risks. Both governments have already recognized some of these threats. President Trump’s strategy cautions that AI may “pose novel national security risks in the near future,” specifically in cybersecurity and in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) domains. Similarly, last September, China’s main AI security standards body emphasized the necessity for AI safety standards to address cybersecurity, CBRN, and loss of control risks. From there, the two sides could take practical steps to build technical trust between leading standards organizations—such as China’s National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee () and the America’s National Institute of Standards and Technology () Additionally, industry organizations like the AI Industry Alliance of China (AIIA) and the Frontier Model Forum in the US could exchange best practices regarding risk management frameworks. The AIIA has created "self-discipline conventions" that most leading Chinese developers have endorsed. A new Chinese whitepaper, specifically addressing advanced risks like cyber misuse, biological misuse, large-scale manipulation, and loss of control, was released during the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) and can aid in alignment between the two countries. As trust strengthens, governments and leading labs could start sharing safety evaluation methods and results for the most sophisticated models. The Shanghai Initiative, revealed at WAIC, explicitly calls for developing “mutually recognized safety evaluation platforms.” According to an Anthropic co-founder, a recent Chinese AI safety evaluation shares similar findings with Western assessments: advanced AI systems pose some CBRN risks and are beginning to show early signs of autonomous self-replication and deception. A common understanding of model vulnerabilities—and how those vulnerabilities are being tested—would form the basis for broader safety collaboration. Finally, the two sides could create incident-reporting channels and emergency response protocols. In the event of AI-related accidents or misuse, prompt and transparent communication is crucial. Establishing modern "hotlines" between top AI officials could ensure real-time alerts when models exceed safety limits or act unexpectedly. In April, President Xi Jinping stressed the need for "monitoring, early risk warning and emergency response" in AI. After any hazardous incident, a pre-arranged response plan should be in place. Engagement will present challenges—political and technical obstacles are inevitable. However, AI risks are global, demanding a global governance approach. Instead of using China as an excuse for domestic inaction on AI regulation, American policymakers and industry leaders should engage directly. AI risks won’t wait. ```

Maryland Governor Wes Moore recently commented that Democrats should not be focused on the 2028 election at this time. He urged a focus on the present rather than the future presidential race, even suggesting that considering 2028 is "disqualifying." I have great respect for Governor Moore, considering him one of the party's strongest leaders. While I agree with his sense of urgency, I believe we can work on current issues while also preparing for the future. This urgency includes developing the next generation of leaders, starting today. The Democratic Party requires revitalization. An essential element of this is promoting the next wave of leadership, not in 2027 or after the midterms, but immediately. Our success depends on it. The unfortunate truth is that, following the 2020 and 2022 elections, the Democratic Party is losing the perception battle. We are increasingly seen as the party of the status quo, with aging leaders, elite institutions, and a detached, technocratic approach to the everyday struggles of the people we aim to represent. When voters under 40 are asked what Democrats stand for, the response is often uncertain. Swing voters in key states express negative sentiments about the party's direction. A recent Wall Street Journal report indicated that Democratic favorability is at a 35-year low. The good news is that Democrats have an exceptionally strong and deep bench of leaders ready to take on prominent roles. We have governors who have achieved significant victories and have broad appeal, including Wes Moore, Gretchen Whitmer, Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, JB Pritzker, Gavin Newsom, and Phil Murphy. We also have senators such as Ruben Gallego, Elissa Slotkin, Chris Coons, and Chris Murphy; mayors like Mitch Landrieu and Justin Bibb; cabinet secretaries such as Gina Raimondo and Pete Buttigieg; and emerging figures like James Talarico and Rep. Sarah McBride, who are demonstrating strong leadership and redefining the Democratic brand. In New Jersey and Virginia, we have impressive 2025 gubernatorial candidates in Reps. Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, respectively. Organizations like NewDEAL Leaders and Next50 are actively recruiting, electing, and supporting state and local leaders who represent the next generation within the party. However, most people outside of political circles likely wouldn't recognize even half of these individuals. This isn't a problem of messaging, but rather a lack of visibility. Voters don't develop enthusiasm for résumés or policy papers. They connect with individuals who are present, communicate clearly, and make them feel understood. Achieving this kind of resonance requires consistent effort and a visible presence, along with a willingness to step into the spotlight proactively. Presidential campaigns typically begin with ambiguous denials, followed by subtle campaigning in Iowa or the launch of a PAC. Traditionally, serious campaigning is delayed until after the midterms to avoid "distracting" from the party's broader agenda. This tradition is now detrimental. Our brand is suffering, and rebuilding it requires presenting voters with fresh, compelling faces of the Democratic Party. Leaders, not messages, are what change a brand. In 2020, I worked on Joe Biden's campaign during a crowded primary. A key argument for his candidacy was not only his experience but also his proven electability. In 2018, as a former vice president, he actively campaigned for Democrats at all levels. He visited conservative districts and swing states, held rallies, recorded robocalls, and helped flip seats like Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district. He earned this reputation by consistently showing up early, often, and everywhere, demonstrating to Democratic primary voters that he knew how to win in challenging areas. Anyone considering a 2028 run should be engaged in similar efforts now, or make way for someone who will. Winning governors' races in 2025 and flipping Republican-held seats in 2026 will require changing voters' perceptions of "the Democrats." This begins with leadership. Anyone aspiring to be the party's standard-bearer must act like it now by supporting down-ballot candidates, collaborating with state parties, raising funds, recruiting talent, and participating in important battles. We should welcome a large and competitive primary field in 2028. More ideas and leaders will strengthen us. This process will showcase our greatest strength: our talent. It's crucial for all potential candidates to remember that the presidency is more than just a position; it represents leadership of a movement, a message, and a national coalition. If you aspire to lead the Democratic Party, begin leading it now. ```

For years, AI has been promoted by healthcare professionals and companies for its potential in medicine, including enhancing diagnostics and surpassing doctors in tasks like cancer detection. Some enthusiasts even envision AI one day discovering a "cure for cancer." However, a recent study indicates that doctors who consistently used AI experienced a decline in their skills within a few months. The study, published in The Lancet on Wednesday, revealed that clinicians who regularly used AI became overly dependent on its recommendations over six months. This dependence led them to become "less motivated, less focused, and less responsible when making cognitive decisions without AI assistance." This research adds to a growing body of evidence highlighting the possible negative effects of AI on its users. A previous study from MIT suggested that ChatGPT could produce inaccurate or fabricated scientific information. How the study was conducted Researchers from various European institutions conducted an observational study across four endoscopy centers in Poland participating in the Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy for Cancer Prevention (AICOLON) trial. Funding was provided by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. As part of the trial, these centers implemented AI tools for detecting polyps—growths that can be either benign or cancerous—in late 2021. The study examined 1,443 colonoscopies performed without AI assistance out of a total of 2,177 colonoscopies conducted between September 2021 and March 2022. Nineteen experienced endoscopists carried out these colonoscopies. The researchers compared the quality of colonoscopies performed three months before and three months after the introduction of AI. Colonoscopies were randomly conducted either with or without AI assistance. Among those performed without AI, 795 occurred before regular AI use, and 648 took place after the AI tools were implemented. What the study found Three months before AI implementation, the adenoma detection rate (ADR) was approximately 28%. After AI was introduced, the ADR dropped to 22% when clinicians performed unassisted colonoscopies. ADR, a standard metric for colonoscopy quality, represents "the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by a physician that detect at least one histologically confirmed colorectal adenoma or adenocarcinoma." Higher ADR is linked to a reduced risk of colorectal cancer, as adenomas are precancerous growths. The study indicated that AI improved detection rates when used, but clinicians' detection skills declined when AI assistance was removed. Researchers attributed this decline to "the natural human tendency to over-rely" on decision support systems like AI. "Imagine you want to travel somewhere and can't use Google Maps," said Marcin Romańczyk, study co-author and assistant professor at the Medical University of Silesia. "We call it the Google Maps effect. We try to get somewhere, and it’s impossible to use a regular map. It works very similarly." Implications of the study Omer Ahmad, a consultant gastroenterologist at University College Hospital London, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study (but wasn't involved in the research), told TIME that AI exposure likely weakened doctors' visual search habits and gaze patterns essential for polyp detection. "In essence, dependence on AI detection could dull human pattern recognition," Ahmad stated. He added that regular AI use might also "reduce diagnostic confidence" when AI assistance is unavailable or impair the endoscopists' colonoscope maneuvering skills. Catherine Menon, principal lecturer in the University of Hertfordshire’s Department of Computer Science, commented that, “Although de-skilling resulting from AI use has been raised as a theoretical risk in previous studies, this study is the first to present real-world data that might potentially indicate de-skilling arising from the use of AI in diagnostic colonoscopies.” Menon expressed concern that over-reliance on AI could make healthcare practitioners vulnerable to technological failures. Other experts advise caution when interpreting the results of a single study. Venet Osmani, a professor of clinical AI and machine learning at Queen Mary University of London, noted to SMC that the overall number of colonoscopies (both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted) increased during the study. Osmani suggested that the increased workload may have caused clinician fatigue and lower detection rates. Allan Tucker, a professor of artificial intelligence at Brunel University of London, also pointed out that clinician performance improved overall with AI assistance. He added to SMC that concerns about deskilling due to automation bias "is not unique to AI systems and is a risk with the introduction of any new technology." "The ethical question then is whether we trust AI over humans," Tucker stated. "Often, we expect there to be a human overseeing all AI decision-making, but if the human experts are putting less effort into their own decisions as a result of introducing AI systems this could be problematic.” "This is not simply about monitoring technology,” Ahmad says. “It’s about navigating the complexities of a new human-AI clinical ecosystem.” He emphasizes the importance of establishing safeguards, suggesting that, beyond this study, efforts should focus on "preserving essential skills in a world where AI becomes ubiquitous." ```

YouTube stands as a highly frequented online platform in the United States. However, some content available on the video-sharing platform isn't suitable for all age groups. Like most platforms, YouTube has safeguards, such as restrictions on violence and nudity, intended to protect users under 18. Nevertheless, young users have previously found it easy to bypass these measures by falsifying their birthdate when creating an account. The company is now introducing an AI-driven system to estimate a user's age based on their platform activity. James Beser, director of product management at YouTube Youth, explained last month that this "signal" would be used, irrespective of the account's stated birthday, to provide age-appropriate experiences and protections. Beser mentioned that the technology has been utilized in other markets "for some time" and will initially be tested in the U.S. starting Wednesday, followed by a broader implementation. “We’re proud to again be at the forefront of introducing technology that allows us to deliver safety protections while preserving teen privacy,” Beser said. “Families trust YouTube to provide a safe and enriching experience, and we’ll continue to invest to protect their ability to explore safely online.” Here's what you should know about YouTube's plans to estimate the ages of its American users. How the AI-powered tool works Beser stated that the model will analyze various user signals to estimate their age. These include the types of videos they search for, the categories they watch, and how long they've had the account. If the model indicates that a user is under 18, YouTube will automatically enforce age-specific protections. This includes turning off personalized ads, enabling digital wellbeing features such as break and bedtime reminders, and implementing safeguards to recommendations by limiting repeated exposure to certain content. Beser clarified that only users estimated or verified to be over 18 will be permitted to view age-restricted content that may not be appropriate for younger audiences. According to a Google forum post, YouTube will not require all users to upload identification. However, if the model incorrectly assumes a user is underage, they can verify they are 18 or older by using a credit card, selfie, or government-issued ID. Underage users may decline to upload these documents, but teen protections will remain active. The same forum also indicated that the new model might have a "limited impact" on content creators. If a user is classified as a teen, YouTube could default their uploads to private and might restrict their ability to monetize gifts on vertical live streams. A YouTube employee noted that this could lead to reduced ad revenue since only non-personalized ads are shown to these viewers. Why is YouTube doing this? With teenagers continuously discovering methods to bypass age restrictions, platforms like YouTube are experiencing heightened political pressure in the U.S. to enhance protections for minors through stricter measures. In June, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for websites with sexually explicit content. Legislators have also proposed laws imposing restrictions on social media use for minors. Furthermore, the bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), aimed at requiring platforms to take greater steps to minimize harm to minors, was reintroduced in Congress this year. This is also part of a wider global trend. The Australian government is progressing towards a nationwide ban for children under 16 from social media (including YouTube) and has initiated age checks for search engines. In the U.K., a law targeting adult sites mandates age verification, and non-adult platforms like Spotify, Reddit, and X have also reportedly requested age verification from users. However, some of these policies have drawn criticism, primarily due to concerns about privacy and free speech. What are the implications and concerns? The internet civil rights group Fight for the Future suggests that age-estimation technology could prevent some users from accessing content they should be allowed to view. They argue that an adult could be misclassified as a child simply for watching roleplay game reviews on YouTube and then be forced to either appeal the decision by uploading identification or give up access to the service. YouTube's age-estimation plan is also facing scrutiny due to potential privacy violations. A Change.org petition opposing the rollout has gathered over 68,000 signatures. The petition argues that "mass surveillance and data control" are at stake because the age estimation model analyzes users' viewing behavior and history. It further contends that YouTube's move could set a dangerous precedent: "Once these systems are normalized, they rarely go away—they expand. If we don’t speak up now, we risk losing our ability to browse, create, and enjoy content freely. This is about more than YouTube. This is about digital freedom." ```

The U.S. website's new recruitment page features an image of Uncle Sam pointing and the message: "America has been invaded by criminals and predators. We need YOU to get them out." It highlights the fact that a college degree is not required and mentions potential signing bonuses of up to $50,000 and student loan repayment assistance of $60,000. These incentives are part of an extensive recruitment drive that is expected to take years to fully achieve its objectives. Republicans in Congress recently allocated $30 billion to ICE to facilitate increased deportations. However, the Administration's aim to increase ICE's staff from 20,000 to 30,000 is facing several hurdles. These include the difficulty of finding qualified candidates who are also willing to reside in areas where ICE plans to deploy more agents. John Sandweg, former acting director of ICE under the Obama administration, estimates that it will take three years before a noticeable increase in ICE agents is seen, which coincides with the end of the administration's term. To promote recruitment, ICE is participating in job fairs, visiting college campuses, and attending law enforcement recruiting events. Actor Dean Cain, known for his role as Superman in the 1990s, recently endorsed the recruitment effort by posting a video on X, announcing his honorary officer status with ICE. He stated his desire to support first responders in ensuring the safety of Americans. ICE's intensified recruitment efforts coincide with deportation and arrest rates falling short of the Administration’s goals to arrest 3,000 immigrants daily and deport 1 million people in Trump's first year. The Department of Homeland Security reported receiving over 80,000 applications in the first week of the new campaign. However, indications suggest that many applicants did not meet the agency's criteria. Soon after, Homeland Security Secretary Noem announced the removal of age restrictions, now accepting applicants as young as 18 and older than 40. Previously, the age range was 21 to 37 or 40, depending on the position. Trump’s top White House advisor on the border, Homan, stated on Aug. 6 that ICE was not experiencing recruitment issues and defended the elimination of age limits. Homan noted that individuals over 40 could fill various roles at ICE, including administrative or intelligence positions, even if they were unable to carry a badge and gun. In late July, ICE emailed thousands of retired federal law enforcement agents with the subject line, “return to mission.” The email stated that retired officers could continue receiving their pension payments while earning a new paycheck from ICE. The email emphasized the critical need for reinforcement at ICE and highlighted the value of their skills in achieving the agency's goals. It framed returning to federal service with ICE as an honorable and essential service to the nation. Sandweg considers this outreach to retired officers a "pretty creative solution," as they require less training in areas such as firearm use. However, he notes that the number of retired agents is insufficient to fill all the available positions. New hires require time to train on proper gun handling and arrest procedures. ICE agent training takes place at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia, creating a bottleneck due to limited instructors and training space. Sandweg states that the administration aims to quickly deploy agents to increase arrests and deportations, but the process involves hiring, background checks, and training at FLETC. To address the bottleneck, DHS is planning smaller training centers nationwide, as announced by Secretary Noem on Aug. 8 in Lombard, Illinois. These centers would allow trainees to stay closer to their families during training. ICE's aggressive recruitment efforts are raising concerns among sheriffs nationwide, who fear that the agency's attractive offers will attract local officers. However, ICE's recruitment challenge extends beyond training. Geography is also a factor. The Trump Administration aims to locate and arrest undocumented immigrants in Democratic-led cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. According to Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, it is more difficult for ICE to recruit law enforcement in these areas because local police departments already offer better pay. Furthermore, ICE's recent actions, such as making arrests at courthouses and workplaces, often while masked, have negatively impacted the public perception of the agency, particularly in those cities. Chishti emphasizes that job seekers are not solely motivated by money, and factors such as location, job status perception, and how they are perceived in the job also play a significant role. These factors currently pose challenges for ICE. ```

I have spent time in the facilities of both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Emory University—locations housing some of the most committed and brilliant minds in public health and medicine. I underwent training there, worked there, and considered many of the individuals within those walls as friends and professional associates. This past Friday, those very same premises were transformed into a crime scene. Individuals targeted institutions whose core mission is to prevent illness, preserve lives, and advance knowledge. It should deeply concern each one of us that such vital places came under attack. While I wish I could claim this incident was unforeseen, it was not. During the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak, I observed the public health response being politicized in ways that undermined the very individuals risking their lives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the politicization of science escalated to unparalleled levels, infiltrating all facets of government. In such cases, framing respect or disdain for science as a political viewpoint not only weakens scientists and public health leaders; it fosters fear and uncertainty among people who may lack the necessary background to interpret complex scientific evidence. This approach provided a platform for groups to spread misinformation while actively dismantling decades of global health progress. These assaults have not been limited to public health guidance. They have extended to dismantling valuable collaborations and institutions—such as Doctors Without Borders, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and others—which have invested years in building trust, delivering life-saving interventions, and fostering global cooperation. The deterioration of these systems jeopardizes not only our capacity to respond to the next crisis but also the delicate relief they offered to already fearful health workers who, during the most challenging periods of COVID-19, continued caring for patients despite immense personal hazards. It is easy to forget the scenes—ICUs overflowing, patients dying by the thousands. Vaccines did not merely offer hope; they saved lives and alleviated suffering. They also provided a degree of solace to exhausted and frightened health workers, offering them another tool to protect themselves and their patients. However, respectful discourse has been replaced by hostility, amplified by leaders who exploit division for political ends. I have personally experienced it—harassment, threats—simply for performing my duties and providing evidence-based scientific information. The shooting in Atlanta on Friday, August 8, 2025, was more than just an act of violence. It served as a warning. Violence directed at public health workers is violence against the very systems designed to protect us. If those systems are weakened, cases of vaccine-preventable diseases will re-emerge. Consequently, outbreaks will be more likely to spread rapidly, and we will lack the necessary tools to effectively mitigate these risks. Suppress science, and people will perish—not only from bullets, but from diseases we could have prevented. We cannot turn a blind eye, nor can we treat this as just another tragedy in the news cycle. We must demand that our leaders protect those who safeguard us, rebuild trust in science instead of sowing seeds of disbelief, and reject the politics of division. We must preserve the institutions and partnerships that have been meticulously built over many decades. Should our elected officials be unwilling or refuse to act, then it becomes the responsibility of each and every one of us to take action. This entails voting for leaders who prioritize policies based on evidence, speaking out when misinformation and disinformation proliferate, supporting local and global public health initiatives, and standing in solidarity with health workers who put themselves at risk to ensure our safety. It means refusing to accept attacks on scientists and science as normal. Because if we fail to act now, Friday will not be the final somber day for science—or for America.