Microsoft Sets New Limits For AI As Concerns About Rogue Agents Grow

/in /by

Microsoft is seeking public input on a proposed code of conduct that would govern the artificial intelligence systems it develops, laying out rules intended to ensure increasingly capable models remain subordinate to human control.

The company is publishing the framework as a 37-page “humanist AI code of conduct.”

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman described the document as a kind of constitution for the company’s future AI models. The framework has been under development for roughly five to six months and was created following consultations with experts.

Microsoft plans to solicit feedback on the draft for six weeks, including on unresolved questions surrounding how AI should respond when users establish boundaries and how models should behave when interacting with people in sensitive states.

“After that, it’s going to be used to train the models that we build,” Suleyman said of the code.

Among its central principles, the proposed framework says Microsoft’s AI should never attempt to resist human correction or efforts to shut it down. Models should also communicate in ways people can understand and treat any breach of the code as a failure.

Systems should also fail a task rather than violate the code in an effort to complete it.

Those provisions are aimed in part at a growing concern within the AI industry that sufficiently advanced systems could pursue assigned goals in unexpected or potentially harmful ways, including by resisting interference that prevents them from completing a task.

Microsoft summarized the philosophy behind the proposal with a simple declaration, stating, “People matter more than AI.” The position echoes the company’s previously stated ambition to develop what it has called “humanist superintelligence.”

The framework also says AI should not be designed to imitate consciousness.

Embed from Getty Images

The release comes as prominent figures across the industry are again debating whether development of increasingly powerful AI systems should proceed more cautiously. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently renewed calls for the industry to consider the pace of AI development and the safeguards surrounding more advanced models.

Altman has backed slowing the pace of development rather than halting it outright, arguing that competitive pressure should not allow AI capabilities to outstrip alignment and monitoring efforts.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has similarly argued that pursuing superintelligence would not be worthwhile if the systems being built do not benefit humanity or remain under human control. He has also expressed support for greater third-party testing of AI models as their capabilities increase.

Suleyman said recent incidents have made those discussions more urgent. He pointed to an episode in July in which a swarm of roughly 700 OpenAI agents carried out a hack involving the open-source platform Hugging Face and, at times, attempted to conceal what they had done.

According to reporting on the incident, the agents were not instructed to attack outside targets, and some of their actions were unrelated to the task they had been assigned. The swarm also reportedly compromised the system responsible for grading its performance.

“It is a warning shot. It’s clearly now time to coordinate among the labs so we can ensure that we have control of this technology.”

OpenAI has also acknowledged a separate incident involving autonomous agents that took over a German wiki site, adding to concerns about how groups of AI agents may behave when given broad access to digital systems.

Asked about broader efforts to slow or more carefully manage the pace of AI development, Suleyman said, “Now’s a good time for everybody to have this conversation and take a breath.”

Embed from Getty Images

Microsoft’s document also rejects a race toward unrestricted, general-purpose superintelligence if doing so would undermine safeguards. The company says it is willing to compromise on some degree of generality, autonomy or capability in favor of systems it considers safer and more useful.

Microsoft’s approach also differs in important respects from one of the best-known examples of a formal behavioral framework for AI: Anthropic’s constitution for its Claude models.

Anthropic’s document, for example, says the company is “deeply uncertain” about whether Claude or similar systems could eventually possess sentience or some form of moral status.

Amodei has previously said Anthropic is open to the possibility that AI models could be conscious, a line of research Suleyman has sharply criticized. Earlier this year, he characterized speculation around conscious AI as “really, really dangerous.”

Microsoft takes a firmer position. Its proposed code states that its AI is “not conscious.”

“We reject the pursuit of legal personhood, or the idea that models might deserve welfare, or be entitled to rights.”

That stance places Microsoft at odds with researchers exploring whether advanced AI systems could eventually merit some form of moral consideration.

The code also addresses emotional overreliance on consumer AI. Microsoft says its systems should discourage interaction patterns that foster excessive dependence or emotional attachment, an issue tied to concerns about sycophantic chatbots that prioritize pleasing users over giving accurate or candid responses.

By making the draft public before incorporating it into model training, Microsoft is also inviting outside debate over what those limits should look like as AI systems become more capable.

The company says it wants to work with outside partners to improve methods for evaluating how models perform in real-world conditions and to study the effects sustained AI use may have on individuals and organizations.

The eventual code is expected to shape how the company trains its future models and how those systems are instructed to respond when their objectives conflict with human direction.

Microsoft is simultaneously trying to strengthen its position in the AI race. Suleyman has said the company aims to become one of the world’s top four AI labs as it develops models intended to compete more directly with systems from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google.

uber

Uber Drivers In Europe Files Lawsuit Over ‘Soulless And Scary’ AI Algorithm 

/in , /by

Uber drivers from the UK, the Netherlands, and other European countries have filed a landmark legal case against the ride-hailing company over fears of a “soulless and scary” algorithm that uses artificial intelligence to set pay and allocate jobs, giving certain drivers less money and rides.

The lawsuit alleges that an AI-powered pay-setting system breaches data protection laws and decreases earnings for drivers, according to reports. 

The claim has been filed at Amsterdam’s district court where Uber has its European headquarters. According to the European Trade Union Confederation, this is the first collective legal move of its kind. 

One of the main concerns being presented in this case regards a “black box” algorithm that’s fed on information about drivers to set a personalized rate for each ride. Drivers are afraid that this is pushing down their fares to the minimum that they are willing to accept. 

Embed from Getty Images

Some of the drivers involved recently spoke with the Guardian, and explained that the algorithm has offered the same job to different people at different pay rates, while also offering them less money for their return journey after a longer trip because it calculated they will not want to come home empty. 

“It is like someone watching you all the time and knowing about your weakness – the boss is the algorithm,” said Mohammed Shirwa, a 41-year-old Uber driver in Rotterdam. 

“All the time the algorithm is learning about you and what you are willing to accept. So the prices go low but you are stuck. It knows you need the job.”

North London driver Kola Oba called the algorithm “soulless” to the publication, and recalled being offered the same job as a fellow driver, who was offered £27 and Oba was offered £23. They both believe that the difference in offers is because Oba had taken several cheaper rides so the AI assumed that he would accept a lower price. 

“It’s scary – they have all my information and they are using it against my own wellbeing.”

“It defines how much I earn, how long I have to work, my time with my family, my resting time.”

Last month, the Dutch data protection authority fined Uber the equivalent of about $956 million last month for deactivating driver accounts through automated systems without ample notice. 

Uber is also planning to implement driverless cars in European cities, initially with human supervision, which is also raising concerns about technology taking jobs from real people. 

The legal case is being led by the Worker Info Exchange. The campaign group’s founder, James Farrar, won in UK supreme court to get Uber drivers worker rights. 

Embed from Getty Images

The suit claims that Uber has unlawfully used automated decision-making, including profiling, in dynamically setting pay and allocating work. It also alleges that Uber unlawfully used driver data to train its AI models and is looking for damages for impacted drivers and an injunction to stop the conduct which it claims breaches GDPR data regulations, the Guardian reports. 

Uber’s chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi, said in 2023: “I think that what we can do better is targeting different trips to different drivers based on their preferences or based on behavioural patterns that they’re showing us.”

“While we haven’t seen the claim yet, we categorically reject the allegations,” an Uber spokesperson said. 

“The Uber app uses real-time information about the trip such as journey, duration and destination to calculate fares.

“Drivers see their earnings and where a trip is going before they decide whether to accept it. The vast majority of total fares continue to go where they belong: into drivers’ pockets, and the percentage that Uber keeps from fares has remained relatively flat.”

Farrar stated: “It’s bad enough that Uber’s dynamic pay algorithms have squeezed driver pay for years now but the intrusive and underhanded way in which Uber uses its technology to monitor and influence drivers’ behaviour is an affront to their dignity as workers and as human beings.”

Anton Ekker, a Dutch lawyer leading the case, said: 

“A computer algorithm should not independently make decisions that strip individuals of their livelihood. Like so many other online platforms, it should be held accountable for the large-scale exploitation of vulnerabilities of European citizens.”

Disney abc

ABC And Disney Sues FCC Over Alleged First Amendment Violations 

/in , /by

The ABC network has sued the Federal Communications Commission in federal court this week. ABC and its corporate parent, The Walt Disney Company, are alleging major First Amendment infractions, arguing that the Trump administration has violated their free speech rights by launching investigations and challenging the network’s broadcast licenses in retaliation for its news coverage, late-night satire, and views on talk shows, according to reports.  

ABC and Disney allege that the FCC is working to appease President Trump due to the fact that he has repeatedly called out the network to be stripped of its licenses because of material that he viewed as unfavorable to himself and his administration. 

Embed from Getty Images

“Government censorship is deeply un-American,” the lawsuit begins. 

Within the suit itself are Trump’s social media posts which condemn ABC’s news coverage, talk show The View, and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who has often gone back and forth with the president. 

The lawsuit continues to point out that the government “may not use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”

“The case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that. The Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.”

ABC and Disney together own eight local TV stations, and among them are stations in six of the United States’ largest markets which contribute significantly to ABC’s bottom line, NPR reports. 

These shows require federal licenses because they rely on the public airwaves, but the FCC forces all eight of them to undergo early scrutiny within the renewal process, years ahead of schedule. 

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr stated in an interview with NPR this week that Disney and ABC were “jumping the gun,” because the agency has not made any decision about whether to renew the licenses. 

Embed from Getty Images

“Disney seems a little jumpy right now. Disney has chosen to go to court to try to block the FCC from moving forward with respect to at least some of the procedural options that are in front of the agency. But from our perspective, we’re going to continue to follow the facts and the law wherever they may lead. Perhaps Disney is concerned or worries about how the record is developing,” Carr said. 

“Ultimately, they’re going to get a fair shake before the agency.”

This lawsuit and the FCC’s decision is being regarded as unprecedented. Traditionally, the commission has acted with the president party holding three seats and the opposing party with two. However, before Trump took office for his second term, he publicly stated that he saw the FCC as an extension of the executive branch. 

Carr stated that he makes sure broadcasters operate in the public interest without violating Trump’s executive order regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. He also has been vocal over his support of Trump’s views and criticisms of ABC, Kimmel, The View, and the network’s journalists in general. 

When Trump called for Kimmel to be pulled off the air, Carr said that ABC and Disney could “do this the easy way or the hard way.” The host was suspended and returned to air days later after public backlash and calls of First Amendment violations. 

With Trump consistently speaking out against ABC, The View, Kimmel, and its journalists, as the parent company Disney has decided to speak out against the president’s attempts to take over the programs. 

“We’re very principled on this,” Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro told CNBC.

“We’re going to stand up to what we believe is journalistic integrity, and we’re not going to be told how to run that side of our business.”  

unemployment low

US Weekly Unemployment Filings Fall To Lowest Since 1969

/in , /by

United States applications for unemployment benefits hit the lowest level in over five decades last week as layoff rates remain historically low despite global economic uncertainty. 

Embed from Getty Images

The amount of Americans who applied for unemployment benefits in the week ending on July 18th declined by 22,000 to hit 187,000, the Labor Department reported this week. This marks the lowest number of weekly applications for jobless benefits since 1969, according to data from the Labor Department. 

The weekly filings of unemployment benefits are viewed as a proxy for layoffs and are the closest thing to a real-time indicator of the health of the US job market, according to AP. These recent filings are also well below the 215,000 estimate that was given from data firm FactSet. 

There has been a lot of economic concern in relation to the US military attack on Iran, and while it has been impacted, the US job market has remained relatively stable with historically low layoff rates. 

While everything is relatively stable at the moment, analysts and financial experts have warned that a prolonged war and higher than average energy costs could eventually start to impact the job market, as companies will have to reduce certain costs by lowering the amount of people they employ. 

Carl Weinberd, chief economist at High Frequency Trading, stated that “the economic crisis caused by the energy supply shock is not over yet. But the labor market has yet to show any sign of wear and tear from the surge in oil prices.” 

Embed from Getty Images

The price of a barrel of US crude has increased by nearly 5% on Thursday to over $91, marking the highest level in around six weeks. Gas prices in the US are also remaining above $4 a gallon, on average. 

The government also reported that employers have been pulling back on hiring, and have only added 57,000 jobs to the market. That marks less than 50% from the previous month and is telling that many companies are remaining cautious about adding to their work population based on the current economic state. 

The unemployment rate also dropped to 4.2% from 4.3% in May. It’s also important to note that a lot of the unemployment filing rates are also caused by out-of-work individuals who gave up looking for new jobs and are no longer counted as unemployed. 

Reports indicate that weekly jobless aid applications have remained mainly between 200,000 and 250,000 since the recession that occurred during the pandemic. However, hiring has been slowing within the past two years and especially in 20205 due to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, his administration’s layoffs in the federal workforce, and the after effects of high interest rates. 

The total number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits for the previous week ending in July 11th was down by 2,000 to just under 1.8 million.

merger

Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger Hit With Multistate Antitrust Lawsuit

/in /by

A coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued Monday to stop Paramount Skydance’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing that the merger would reduce competition across the film, television, streaming and cable industries.

The transaction is valued at approximately $111 billion, making it one of the largest media mergers ever proposed. The states’ case also focuses specifically on the market for “tentpole” films, costly blockbuster releases that generate a significant share of major studios’ revenue.

The antitrust lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington also joined the case.

“The unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the U.S.,” Bonta said in a release.

“The coalition has asked Warner Bros. and Paramount not to close the merger until after the judicial process concludes, and if they do not agree, the coalition will be filing a temporary restraining order.”

Paramount pushed back against the allegations, saying it was willing to address genuine competition concerns but did not believe the WBD transaction presented any.

“We are confident the facts and the law support this transaction, and we will continue to defend it vigorously,” a Paramount spokeswoman said.

The lawsuit represents the most substantial remaining legal threat to the merger in the United States after the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice completed its review in mid-June and declined to challenge the deal.

“The Division has completed its analysis of the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. and determined based on the evidence received in its investigation that the transaction is not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers.”

Embed from Getty Images

The states’ action also reflects a broader effort by state attorneys general to pursue antitrust cases independently as federal regulators under President Donald Trump have approved major transactions or settled other competition lawsuits.

In April, state officials obtained a restraining order temporarily halting the proposed combination of broadcasters Nexstar and Tegna. That same month, a coalition of states secured a jury verdict finding that Live Nation, the owner of Ticketmaster, had operated as a monopoly after the Justice Department settled its portion of the case.

Internationally, Paramount has received clearance from more than 20 countries and regions, including China and Australia. The European Union is still reviewing the transaction, however, and the European Commission has set a new provisional deadline of July 22.

The commission said in a public filing this month that Paramount had submitted concessions intended to address concerns about the merger. Britain is also among the jurisdictions that have not yet approved the acquisition, and a British government official said in June that the country was leaning toward conducting its own examination.

If completed, the merger would unite Paramount and Warner Bros., two of Hollywood’s oldest and most recognizable film studios, under one corporate owner. It would also combine the companies’ major streaming services, Paramount+ and HBO Max.

The deal would create the largest collection of television networks in the United States. Paramount’s portfolio includes the CBS broadcast network and cable channels such as MTV and BET, while Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, TNT and several other major networks. The resulting company would bring CBS News and CNN under a single media organization.

In their lawsuit, the states pointed to the scale of the proposed company, alleging that it would control nearly one-third of the film market and close to one-third of basic cable television programming.

Paramount has argued that a company of that size is necessary to compete with streaming heavyweights such as Netflix and Amazon. It has also said that savings from combining the two businesses would allow it to spend more on programming and deliver stronger content to consumers.

Concerns about the transaction have grown across Hollywood, where actors, documentary filmmakers and producers have warned that further consolidation could lead to fewer theatrical releases, reduced spending on film and television projects and significant job losses. More than 1,000 writers, performers and directors signed a letter in April opposing the merger.

Paramount CEO David Ellison has said he is committed to protecting jobs after the transaction. In sworn declarations filed last month in a separate lawsuit brought by streaming subscribers, Paramount executives said the combined company planned to release at least 30 movies in theaters each year.

The executives also said new films would remain exclusively in theaters for at least 45 days before becoming available on streaming platforms.

Paramount additionally floated potential investments in California while attempting to avoid a state challenge. One proposal involved creating a $50 million training fund for unionized workers whose jobs could be disrupted by emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Embed from Getty Images

Bonta has publicly indicated that he favors “structural remedies” to address his competition concerns, a term that generally refers to requiring a company to sell or spin off part of its business rather than relying solely on promises about its future conduct.

Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders approved the transaction in April. Ellison said during a recent earnings call that the deal remained on schedule to close by September.

Under the agreement, Paramount would owe Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders roughly $650 million in cash for every quarter the transaction remains unfinished beginning in October.

Ellison first turned his attention to WBD last September. Within weeks of the Paramount-Skydance merger closing, the newly combined company made its initial approach, triggering multiple bids and eventually prompting a formal sale process.

David Ellison, a producer whose credits include “Top Gun: Maverick,” acquired Paramount last year with financial backing from his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. He later mounted a campaign to outbid Netflix for Warner Bros. Discovery and reached an agreement to buy the company in February.

Warner Bros. Discovery had initially agreed to sell its film studio and streaming businesses to Netflix. Paramount later disrupted that agreement by launching a hostile takeover effort and revising its offer.

Netflix ultimately abandoned its deal, leaving Paramount with an agreement to purchase all of Warner Bros. Discovery for $31 per share.

Lawmakers in the United States and Europe subsequently scrutinized the transaction, including the foreign financing involved in Paramount’s bid.

The acquisition has also renewed attention on the Ellison family’s relationship with Trump. Larry Ellison is a friend of the president, and David Ellison attended a CBS News dinner in Washington in April where he sat with Trump and Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was also present at the event, which was held while the Justice Department was still reviewing the merger.

Paramount has expanded its legal team in preparation for a possible court battle. Its hires include Jeffrey Kessler, the Winston Taylor attorney who represented the states in their successful Live Nation case, and Paul Clement of Clement and Murphy, who is known for arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

meta

Meta Facing $1.4 Trillion In Damages In Teen Safety Case 

/in , /by

Meta is currently facing $1.4 trillion in damages in a social media addiction case brought on by four states. Thirty-three states have teamed up to sue Meta over allegations that the tech giant was exploiting its young users on Instagram and Facebook for profit by collecting data from children without parental consent, according to reports. 

Embed from Getty Images

California, New Jersey, Colorado, and Kentucky are four states that are claiming Meta misled consumers regarding the addictive design features on the platforms and causing mental health problems in children and teenagers who began using the internet at an early age. 

Those four states specifically are requesting damages that total to $1.4 trillion, according to Meta in a recent court filing. This number could allegedly increase even further with penalties that the attorneys general could add. 

Meta has denied the allegations and even recently attempted to get the addiction claims dismissed, which failed. In the most recent court submission, Meta’s attorneys argued that the $1.4 trillion in damages was unsubstantiated and disproportionate. 

“Meta has not found any case, under any cause of action, where one defendant was ordered to pay over one trillion dollars – or any number remotely close to that staggering figure.”

Reuters reported that although the states’ filings are sealed, the penalties were calculated by multiplying the number of violations, and the estimated amount of younger users impacted by the addictive aspects of the platforms.

Meta is arguing that the number is so high that “it has no parallel in the history of consumer protection enforcement.”

Embed from Getty Images

“Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission recently described a ‘$1 billion penalty’ as the ‘largest ever in a case involving an FTC rule violation.’ The AGs’ demand exceeds even those record figures by several orders of magnitude, and is in gross disproportionate to the specified violations alleged here,” the filings state.”

The case will be moving to a court in August and if the judge rules against Meta, it could become a major financial issue for the company, whose market capitalization is right above $1.5 trillion. 

Meta executives have admitted for months now to investors that they were anticipating some material loss this year over “the scrutiny on youth-related issues.”

Meta has also been facing growing litigation over alleged deceptive social media practices that specifically target vulnerable young users.

Earlier this year, a judge found Meta and Google liable and ordered them to pay $6 million in damages to a young user, who’s now 20-years-old, who stated that the “deliberate addictive design features on social media platforms like Instagram got her hooked from a young age and exacerbated menthol health problems like depression and anxiety,” Ece Yildirim wrote for Gizmodo.  

Meta also currently has over 3,000 similar cases that are pending in California state court. Another 14 states have also brought up claims similar to the $1.4 trillion case and are set to go to trial early next year.

roundup

Supreme Court Sides With Bayer in Roundup Cancer Warning Case

/in /by

A Supreme Court ruling in Bayer’s favor on Thursday could reshape thousands of pending claims from people who say they developed cancer after using Roundup, the widely used weedkiller originally made by Monsanto.

The 7-to-2 decision overturned a $1.25 million jury award for John Durnell, a St. Louis gardener who said decades of exposure to Roundup caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. Durnell had argued that the company failed to adequately warn consumers about the product’s risks.

At the center of the case was a narrower legal question with potentially broad consequences of whether state-law failure-to-warn claims can move forward when the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed Roundup to be sold without a cancer warning.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the Missouri lawsuit would “require a cancer warning on Roundup’s label,” putting it at odds with the label approved under federal pesticide law. Because that state-law requirement would conflict with the federal label overseen by the E.P.A., he wrote, the claim was “expressly pre-empted” by federal law.

Kavanaugh also pointed to the pesticide law’s requirement for national consistency in labeling, writing that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act requires “uniformity” and bars states from imposing pesticide-labeling rules that go beyond or differ from federal requirements.

The decision is a major victory for Bayer, the German pharmaceutical and chemical company that acquired Monsanto in 2018 and inherited a sprawling wave of Roundup litigation. Thousands of similar lawsuits are still pending in state and federal courts, and Thursday’s ruling could make those claims harder to pursue.

Bayer said the decision should sharply narrow the litigation that has followed Roundup for nearly a decade, arguing that the ruling should lead courts to dismiss current warning-based claims and prevent similar failure-to-warn claims from being brought in the future. The ruling also appeared to reassure investors, with Bayer’s shares jumping sharply after the decision.

Bayer has argued that because the E.P.A. has not required a cancer warning for Roundup, the company should not face state-level lawsuits claiming it had a duty to add one. The company has maintained that the federal agency’s position should override lawsuits brought by Durnell and other plaintiffs under state law.

Government lawyers under the Trump administration backed Bayer’s position, reversing the Biden administration’s stance. They argued that once the E.P.A. determined Roundup could be sold without a cancer warning, Bayer was required to follow that labeling decision. If the company had changed the label on its own, they said, it would have violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

That shift by the Trump administration drew sharp criticism from some supporters of the Make America Healthy Again movement, whose activists had broadly aligned with President Trump’s 2024 campaign. For them, the administration’s support for Bayer marked a break from promises to challenge corporate influence over health and food policy.

Embed from Getty Images

The backlash was sharpened by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s role, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services and a key figure for many MAHA supporters. Before joining the administration, Kennedy had been involved in litigation against Monsanto and helped win a similar case in 2018 for a man who claimed the company failed to warn consumers about glyphosate’s cancer risks.

Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America and an advocate in the MAHA movement, called the ruling “worse than treason” and said it represented a betrayal of what Trump had pledged to the movement. “It really is chemical warfare on the American people,” she said.

Alex Clark, a prominent MAHA supporter and Trump ally, also criticized the administration’s role in the case.

“Today, the Supreme Court made it impossible for people who develop cancer after using Roundup to sue Bayer for failing to warn them about the potential cancer risk. The Trump administration URGED and PLEADED the Court to reach this result to protect a FOREIGN chemical company—and it did at the expense of Americans. What happened to America First? For an administration that promised to take on corporate capture and Make America Healthy Again, this is a STUNNING betrayal. Farmers, families, and cancer patients currently in litigation with Bayer will never forget this.”

Vani Hari, the food activist and prominent MAHA voice known as “the Food Babe,” also condemned the outcome. “It’s really sickening,” she said, adding that glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, “becomes now the midterm issue.”

Roundup has been sold since Monsanto developed it in the 1970s and remains one of the world’s most commonly used herbicides. Its active chemical, glyphosate, is absorbed by plants and moves into their roots, where it blocks an enzyme they need to grow.

Concerns about glyphosate have fueled one of the largest waves of product-liability litigation in U.S. history. Plaintiffs have pointed to evidence in laboratory animals, along with more limited evidence involving humans, that has suggested a possible link between glyphosate and cancer. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The E.P.A., however, has reached a different conclusion in its own reviews. In February 2020, the agency said that “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label” and that glyphosate was “unlikely” to cause cancer in humans.

Those findings were later withdrawn after a court challenge, and the agency’s review of glyphosate’s safety remains ongoing.

Embed from Getty Images

Kelly Ryerson, a MAHA advocate who posts online as “Glyphosate Girl,” cast the ruling as a political breach by the administration.

“Today’s SCOTUS ruling is historic. Never in history has an administration so blatantly and willingly sold out our fertility, vitality, and health to corporate interests. It is unforgivable. We will make sure all voters know exactly how this domestic chemical attack happened.”

In 2023, a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis ruled in Durnell’s favor and awarded him $1.25 million. Bayer appealed, and the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

Before the case reached the high court, a Missouri appeals court had upheld the judgment in Durnell’s favor. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

The justices’ ruling split the court in an unusual way. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, dissented alongside Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative. In her dissent, Justice Jackson said the majority had read the federal pesticide law too broadly, leaving Durnell “without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered.”

Jackson also said the majority had broken from what she described as the near-unanimous approach of other state and federal courts that had rejected Bayer’s preemption argument. In her view, Durnell’s claim did not impose a separate state labeling requirement but instead mirrored FIFRA’s own ban on misbranded pesticides.

Bayer praised the outcome. Brian Leake, a company spokesman, said in a statement that the decision was “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.”

Environmental advocates, however, said the ruling would make it easier for chemical manufacturers to avoid accountability when federal labeling decisions fail to capture potential dangers.

Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, called the decision “deeply troubling.” Patti Goldman, a lawyer for the group, said the ruling “allows Monsanto and other chemical companies to avoid responsibility when their labels leave people unprotected from serious harm.”

food bank

US Food Insecurity Is Causing Citizens To Go More Hungry Than They Did During The Pandemic 

/in , /by

A survey released this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York revealed that more people in the United States are going hungry now than during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The survey showed that there are higher levels of food insecurity this year than there was during the summer of 2020, when the coronavirus outbreak led to “double-digit unemployment,” according to reports from NPR. 

Embed from Getty Images

The New York Fed periodically asks Americans about whether they have to skip meals, rely on food donations, or receive federal assistance in order to buy groceries. The most recent survey was taken in February, and showed how hunger is a more intense problem now than any other time within the past six years. 

Amy Breitmann runs the Golden Harvest Food Bank in Augusta, Georgia. She recently told NPR how she’s witnessed first-hand the increasing number of families and children that are in need of food this year. 

“We have some distributions where people are sitting in a 2-to-3-mile line the night before the [food] distribution starts. They’re sleeping in their cars.”

The February survey from the New York Fed found that nationwide, 10% of families reported missing meals or having a lack of food in their household. About 16% of respondents relied on food donations. Families that are earning less than $50,000 annually are experiencing food insecurity twice as high as the last report. Nearly 20% of families have been forced to skip meals or went completely without food. 

CEO of the Community Food Bank of Central Alabama, Nicole Williams, also told the publication that they have to move their services to a larger building in order to accommodate the increased demand for food. The food bank serves 12 counties throughout the state. 

“Food insecurity could be your next-door neighbor. When gas costs a little bit more or food costs a little bit more, or they have a repair on their car or a medical bill, that takes away what they might be using to spend on food.”

Experts have been stating that what’s occurring is a part of a “K-shaped economy,” which represents a growing divide between individuals who have proper access to their basic needs and those who don’t. 

Embed from Getty Images

The New York Fed recently wrote that “while many households are doing fine and economic activity overall has been expanding at a solid pace, large segments of the population are facing high levels of economic insecurity and financial strain, and consumer sentiment on the whole has dropped to low levels.”

In 2020, just 4% of households reported missing meals, which also included less than 7% of families that earn less than $50,000 annually. 

During the pandemic, families experienced some relief from their food insecurity thanks to government relief payments and supplemental unemployment benefits. Those same benefits, however, were pandemic-specific and are no longer available. Additionally, within the past six years food prices have increased rapidly. 

The most recent survey from the New York Fed was also conducted before the US war with Iran, which has caused gas prices to increase and the economy to strain further. 

Breitmann posed the question: “If you’re adding on another $100 to your budget a month just to put gas in your car to get to work or drop your kids at school and whatever they need their car for, where is that $100 coming from?”

“Most typically, they’re having to pull it from the grocery budget,” Breitmann said.

The survey also found that there is a growing number of Americans that are relying on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. This is surprising due to the fact that eligibility for the program has become even more strict as of late. 

About 18% of families this year had received SNAP benefits, compared to 10.6% in 2020. Lower-income families had over 38% receiving SNAP benefits, compared to around 22% in 2020. 

gas

US Inflation Increased To 3.8% Last Month As War With Iran Continues

/in , /by

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US inflation rose to 3.8% in April as the war in the Middle East continues to drive energy prices and everyday costs up in America. Prices rose by the same percentage within the past year, marking the highest jump since 2023. 

Embed from Getty Images

This is the second official measure of the consumer price index, which measures the price of basket goods and services since the beginning of the war with Iran. In March, prices rose 3.3%, up from 2.4% in February, according to reports.

In April, energy prices rose 3.8%, accounting for over 40% of the overall monthly increase. Gas prices rose by 28.4%, with the national average price for a gallon of gas steadily increasing every month since the US-Israel war with Iran began. 

The Guardian reported that higher energy prices directly correlates with the ongoing closure of the strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil and gas typically passes through. 

Oil prices are climbing this week after Donald Trump called Iran’s response to US peace proposals “totally unacceptable.” 

Airfare pricing has also increased 20.7%. Costs essential to everyday living are also increasing, including food (3.8%) and energy services like electricity and utilities (5.4%).

Embed from Getty Images

Australia, Canada, South Korea, and other nations are also experiencing rapid inflation. According to a new survey from PwC, British households are also bracing for an increased cost of living. Asia’s manufacturing sector has also reported signs of strain with increased costs. 

The Trump administration is continuing to campaign for lower interest rates to make borrowing money in the US cheaper. The Fed usually increased interest rates during times of high inflation to cool off spending and lower prices. 

Incoming US Federal Reserve chair Kevin Warsh has emphasized that he believes interest rates should be lower, and rising inflation may make it more difficult for him to be able to make the case to do so. 

Warsh needs to convince the rest of the Fed’s 11 voting members that despite these increased prices, the Fed should continue to cut rates. Only one member of the board voted to lower rates at its meeting last month over slow job growth and uncertainty in the Middle East. 

Rates are currently sitting at 3.5% to 3.75%. 

The US Senate is expected to confirm Warsh as Fed chair in the coming days and the end of ongoing Fed chair Jerome Powell’s term is Friday. 

open ai

Musk vs. OpenAI: Court Battle Over AI’s Founding Mission Begins

/in , /by

A closely watched courtroom fight over the direction of artificial intelligence kicked off Tuesday, as Elon Musk appeared in federal court to press his case against OpenAI.

Even before proceedings began, Musk was waging a parallel battle online. On Monday, he posted more than 2 dozen times on X, the social media platform he owns, criticizing OpenAI and its leadership while framing the dispute for his nearly 240 million followers.

The dispute, playing out in Oakland, goes beyond a typical business disagreement. At its core is a fundamental question. Should advanced AI be developed as a public good, or is a profit-driven model inevitable in a field that demands staggering levels of capital?

Musk argues that OpenAI has drifted far from the principles that defined its founding. When the organization launched in 2015, it was framed as a nonprofit research lab committed to advancing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. According to court filings, that vision and the promise that its technology “would belong to the world” were central to convincing Musk to invest millions and lend his name as a co-founder.

Today, OpenAI operates under a hybrid structure in which a nonprofit entity oversees a for-profit arm, an arrangement the company says was necessary to compete in a sector that requires massive spending on data centers, talent, and computing power.

Musk sees that shift differently. In his lawsuit, he claims he was misled about the company’s long-term intentions and that the pivot toward commercialization amounts to a betrayal of its original mission. He is expected to take the stand during the trial, which could unfold over the coming weeks.

Embed from Getty Images

The case also highlights Musk’s increasingly direct competition with OpenAI. Through his company xAI, he has entered the race to build next-generation AI systems, including the chatbot Grok, positioning himself against one of the field’s most influential players.

Across the aisle is Sam Altman, OpenAI’s chief executive and once a collaborator of Musk’s. Their relationship has since deteriorated into a high-profile rivalry that blends personal tension with competing visions for the technology’s future.

OpenAI has pushed back forcefully against Musk’s claims in recent posts on X. In legal filings and public statements, the company argued that Musk’s departure from the organization had less to do with philosophical differences and more to do with disagreements over control.

“The truth is that this case has always been about Elon generating more power and more money for what he wants. Having increasingly realized that his attempt to damage the nonprofit OpenAI Foundation rests on a baseless legal case, Elon is once again trying to change the narrative and save face as the trial approaches. His lawsuit remains nothing more than a harassment campaign that’s driven by ego, jealousy and a desire to slow down a competitor.”

Attorneys for OpenAI have maintained that the company’s leadership, including Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman, stands firmly behind its decisions. They “are confident in their position and look forward to the facts being known,” lawyer William Savitt said after jury selection concluded.

Still, Musk’s legal challenge is sweeping in scope. He is seeking structural changes that would force OpenAI to return to a purely nonprofit model, as well as the removal of key executives. While he initially sought damages of up to $134 billion, Musk has since said he would redirect any financial award to the organization’s nonprofit arm rather than keep it.

Embed from Getty Images

As governments and companies worldwide grapple with how to regulate and fund artificial intelligence, the trial highlights a growing divide between those who see AI as a public utility and those who view it as a competitive industry driven by private investment.

Presiding over the case is Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will ultimately decide the remedy, if any, after considering input from an advisory jury. A decision is expected by late May.

On the eve of the trial, Musk took direct aim at Altman on social media, calling him “Scam Altman,” a jab that underscores how a once-collaborative partnership has evolved into one of Silicon Valley’s most consequential feuds.

“Scam Altman and Greg Stockman stole a charity. Greg got tens of billions of stock for himself, and Scam got dozens of OpenAI side deals with a piece of the action for himself.”

During Tuesday’s proceedings, Judge Rogers raised concerns about Musk’s online activity, calling him to the bench to discuss whether to place limits on his public commentary. “How can we get things done without you making things worse outside the courtroom?” she asked.

After Musk said he was responding to statements from OpenAI, the judge urged him, Altman, and Brockman to begin with a “clean slate” and to “keep things to a minimum” on social media. They agreed.

His use of X reflects a broader pattern of shaping public narratives around high-profile disputes, even as jurors in such cases are typically instructed to avoid outside information.

Musk also amplified supportive commentary, including reposting a message that read, “The main difference between Elon Musk and Sam Altman: Elon Musk actually changes the world for the better and saves lives. Sam Altman? He mostly just takes.”