nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

$400 Million DOE Bailout for “SMRs” at Palisades

Multiple reactors on the tiny 432-acre site also introduce the risk of domino-effect multiple meltdowns

Holtec’s inexperience exacerbates these synergistic old and new reactor risks. Holtec still has no NRC-approved SMR-300 design certification, has never built a reactor, nor operated one, nor repaired and restarted one, let alone a reactor as perpetually problem-plagued as the 60-year old Palisades zombie. 

DECEMBER 3, 2025, by Kevin Kamps

regarding the announcement by the U.S. Department of Energy, Holtec International, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer of a $400 million federal bailout for “Small Modular Reactor” deployments at the Palisades nuclear power plant in Covert Township, Van Buren County, southwest Michigan.

Holtec’s uncertified and untested so-called ‘Small Modular Reactor’ design, the SMR-300, is not small. At 300 megawatts-electric (MW-e) each, the additional 600 MW-e would nearly double the nuclear megawattage at Palisades, given the unprecedented zombie restart of the 800 MW-e, six decade old reactor there. The zombie reactor was designed in the mid-1960s, and ground was broken on construction in 1967, with the learn-as-we-go dangerous design and fabrication flaws at the nuclear lemon baked in, still putting us in peril to the present day.

Just look at the harm smaller infamous 67 MW-e Michigan reactors have caused in the past. At Fermi Unit 1 on the Lake Erie shore in Monroe County, “we almost lost Detroit” when the plutonium breeder reactor had a partial core meltdown on October 5, 1966. John G. Fuller wrote an iconic book about it by that title in 1975. And Gil Scott-Heron wrote a haunting song about it in 1977, two years before he joined Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE) in response to the 1979 Three Mile Island Unit 2 meltdown, the worst reactor disaster in U.S. history — thus far anyway.

And at Big Rock Point — Palisades’ sibling reactor — near Charlevoix on the northwest Lower Peninsula’s Lake Michigan shore, the 67 MW-e experimental reactor shockingly released more than 3 million Curies of hazardous ionizing radioactivity into the environment, from supposedly ‘routine operations’ from 1962 to 1997. In the 1970s, local family practitioner, medical doctor Gerald Drake, and University of Michigan trained statistician Martha Drake, documented statistically significant spina bifida in the immediate area downwind. There is also anecdotal evidence of widespread thyroid pathology as well. This is similar to Palisades, where 50 cases of diagnosed thyroid cancer have been alleged by part-time residents of the small, 120-year old Palisades Park Country Club resort community, where there should not be a single such case of this exceedingly rare disease made infamous by Chornobyl and Fukushima.

Given the damage done by 67 MW-e reactors in Michigan in the past, just imagine what havoc could be wreaked by two 300 MW-e reactors — each 4.5 times larger — at Palisades going forward.

Increased breakdown phase risks at the 60-year old zombie reactor, and break-in phase risks at the two SMR-300 new builds, are a recipe for disaster at Palisades.

Palisades has a long list of breakdown phase risks. From the worst neutron-embrittled reactor pressure vessel in the country or perhaps even the entire world, to severely degraded steam generator tubes, a reactor lid that needed replacement two decades ago, lack of fire protection, calcium silicate containment insulation that would dissolve into sludge with the viscosity of Elmer’s Glue blocking emergency core cooling water flow, the worst operating experience in industry with control rod drive mechanism seal leaks from 1972 to 2022, etc., the Palisades zombie reactor has multiple pathways to reactor core meltdown, which would unleash catastrophic amounts of hazardous ionizing radioactivity into the environment, on the beach of Lake Michigan, drinking water supply for 16 million people along its shores, and more than 40 million people downstream and downwind, up the food chain, and down the generations throughout the Great Lakes region.

Chornobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and Three Mile Island-2 in Pennsylvania in 1979, are examples of brand new reactors causing catastrophes. Through design and construction flaws, and operator inexperience, Holtec’s SMR-300s will introduce increased break-in phase risks at the Palisades nuclear power plant, located on the Great Lakes shoreline. The Great Lakes comprise 21% of the planet’s, 84% of North America’s, and 95% of the United States’ surface fresh water.

Multiple reactors on the tiny 432-acre site also introduce the risk of domino-effect multiple meltdowns, as happened at Fukushima Daiichi, Japan in March 2011.

A 1982 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) study the agency unsuccessfully tried to suppress reported that a Palisades meltdown would cause a thousand acute radiation poisoning deaths, 7,000 radiation injuries, 10,000 latent cancer fatalities, and $52 billion in property damage. Adjusting for inflation alone, property damage would now exceed $168 billion. And since populations have increased around Palisades in the past 43 years, casualty figures would be significantly worse, as more people now live in harm’s way.

Holtec’s inexperience exacerbates these synergistic old and new reactor risks. Holtec still has no NRC-approved SMR-300 design certification, has never built a reactor, nor operated one, nor repaired and restarted one, let alone a reactor as perpetually problem-plagued as the 60-year old Palisades zombie. Holtec’s incompetence and corruption has been on full display in just the past several weeks, including a leak of large amounts of ultra-toxic hydrazine into Lake Michigan, the unprecedented fall by a worker into the radioactive reactor cavity, and evidence of potential alcohol consumption and/or drug impairment, including in the protected area, and by a supervisor. Despite all this, NRC has rubber stamped weakened work hour limitations, meaning overworked employees will be more fatigued, as Holtec races to restart the zombie reactor, in order to hold its announced Initial Public Offering, hoping to raise another $10 billion in private investment, for SMR-300 deployment across the country and around the world, with Palisades as the dangerously dubious prototype to be followed.

Speaking of money, Holtec has, thus far, been awarded $3.52 billion (with a B!) in public funding at Palisades alone. But it has requested another $12 billion (with a B!) more. These bailouts significantly impact the pocketbooks of hard working Americans — state and federal taxpayers, as well as electric ratepayers. Palisades represents a wealth redistribution scheme, from the American people to Holtec, compliments of Governor Whitmer, the Michigan state legislature, Congress, President Biden, and now President Trump. Abe Lincoln described the ideal of government as “of, by, and for the people.” At Palisades, government seems to be of, by, and for an inexperienced, incompetent, careless, corrupt and greed-driven corporation, playing radioactive Russian roulette, carrying out a large-scale nuclear experiment, with Great Lakes residents as the unwitting Guinea pigs.”

December 6, 2025 Posted by | safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

UK is running out of water – but data centres refuse to say how much they use.

One Government insider said ‘accurate water figures have historically been very hard to get from facilities of any size’.

 Tech firms are failing to tell the Government how much water they use in
their data centres, as concerns grow that the UK does not have enough water to meet its needs.

Experts are calling on the Government to introduce
tighter regulations on data centres amid warnings that new power and
water-intensive supercomputers could be built in areas vulnerable to
drought. Campaigners have raised concerns that the Government is “too
close” to tech lobbyists and is failing to fully consider the impact a
data centre boom could have on the UK’s natural resources.

 iNews 1st Dec 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/uk-running-out-water-data-centres-refuse-say-4062230

December 4, 2025 Posted by | environment, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Europe militarizes its space agency.


Sat, 29 Nov 2025 , https://www.sott.net/article/503252-Europe-militarizes-its-space-agency

The ESA has been awarded record funding, dropping its civilian-only focus and branching out to military and security missions.

The European Space Agency (ESA) will begin working on defense projects for the first time, in a move it is describing as “historic.” A resolution by its 23 member states says the agency has the tools to develop space systems “for security and defense.”

The EU and NATO are pouring tens of billions in taxpayer and borrowed money into supporting defense firms and churning out weapons, claiming Russia poses an imminent threat. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that EU leaders are inflating the alleged danger to push their own political agendas and funnel cash into the arms industry.

Next year’s budget allocates a record €22.1 billion (around $24 billion) to the ESA for the next three years.Its member states include virtually all European NATO countries, as well as non‑NATO members such as Switzerland and Austria.

The new budget is a sharp rise from the previous €17 billion. Germany is the top contributor with €5 billion, followed by France and Italy at over €3 billion each.

According to ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher, Poland was instrumental in promoting the agency’s new strategic direction. He confirmed that Warsaw is currently in discussions to host a new ESA center dedicated to security-focused projects.

Across the EU, defense budgets are surging as Brussels and its allies push for rearmament under the banner of security. The European Commission’s ‘ReArm Europe’ plan aims to pour hundreds of billions into joint weapons procurement and infrastructure, while member states have boosted arms purchases by nearly 40% in just one year.

Research and development spending is also up sharply, signaling a full-speed shift toward a greater military focus.

 ESA approves first-ever defense program:

Europe is taking its biggest step yet into space militarization. The centrepiece of this shift is European Resilience from Space (ERS), a new dual-use program intended to build a military-grade “system of systems” combining national satellites for secure surveillance, communications, navigation, and climate monitoring.

ERS received $1.39 billion of the $1.56 billion ESA sought. In February, ESA will ask European defense ministries for an additional $290 million.

ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher called the decision “a clear defense and security mandate,” noting that support from 23 member states — including non-EU countries such as the UK — was nearly unanimous.

At the ministerial summit in Bremen, ESA member states also approved:

  • a total transportation budget of $5.09 billion (4.39 billion EUR) to develop reusable European rockets;
  • $4.18 billion for commercial space partnerships;
  • continued funding for the Rosalind Franklin Mars mission, now slated for launch in 2028 with NASA’s confirmed support;
  • initial studies for a mission to Saturn’s moon Enceladus, seen by astrobiologists as a prime target for finding extraterrestrial life.

Germany — already planning to invest $40.6 billion in military space capabilities by 2030 — extended its lead as ESA’s largest contributor. In exchange, Berlin secured a commitment that a German astronaut will be the first European to join NASA’s Artemis lunar missions.

Space consultants note that while ERS funding is substantial, it remains politically delicate. “The coming year will be decisive for whether Europe can truly stand up a sovereign, rapid-response intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance constellation,” said Maxime Puteaux of Novaspace.

Earlier, Maj. Gen. Paul Tedman, head of the UK Space Command,reported that Russia was routinely shadowing and trying to jam British military satellites.

December 3, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, space travel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Star Wars redux: the false promise of space-based missile defense

by Najam Ul Hassan, November 24, 2025, https://spacenews.com/star-wars-redux-the-false-promise-of-space-based-missile-defense/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Opinions%3A%20Is%20space-based%20missile%20defense%20a%20non-starter%3F&utm_campaign=Opinions%20-%202025-11-29

Star Wars is back in vogue with President Trump’s executive order to establish the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. It will feature an ambitious space-based boost-phase interceptor program in addition to terrestrial systems. While admittedly the holy grail of defense against ballistic missiles, the obstacles that plagued its discontinued predecessor, “Brilliant Pebble,” under the Strategic Defense Initiative, remain unaddressed. The technological breakthroughs in launch capacity, decreasing costs of sending mass into space and faster data transfer have led to renewed hope for space-based missile defense, but the fundamental hurdle — physics, not technology — remains to be effectively overcome.

Recurrent interest in space-based missile interceptors (SBI) is driven by the motivation to neutralize the missile in the boost phase, contrary to the other air defense systems that intercept either in the mid-course or the terminal phase. This offers numerous advantages: it is substantially easier to detect and target as the booster has not detached yet, making the target bulkier; the plume from the burn makes it visible; its speed is slower compared to other phases; and the target has not hardened yet, making it more vulnerable. Once the missile enters the midcourse, it deploys decoys with a similar radar cross-section as the actual warhead, which float at similar trajectories, making it exponentially harder to achieve an effective kill. Additionally, the deployment of multiple warheads in case of a Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle or zig-zag moment of hypersonic glide vehicles adds another layer of complexity to successful interception.

However, this lucrative promise is heavily outweighed by the drawback of what could be termed the absenteeism problem in physics. These satellites, carrying kill vehicles, must be stationed in low Earth orbit (LEO) to reach the target in the boost phase, which only lasts from three to five minutes after launch. The fundamental problem is that objects in LEO cannot be parked above one point on Earth; they revolve around Earth, completing a cycle between 90 and 120 minutes. To cover the entire stretch of potential launching points and establish a genuinely global air defense, a constellation of 950 satellites has to be deployed, according to conservative estimates. The estimated cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, is $542 billion as opposed to the $175 billion claim by President Trump.

Not only is the scaling dynamic flawed, but the system is also easy to defeat. The constellation is easily overwhelmed by simultaneous launches. Even if each satellite were to carry more than one interceptor, the system still saturates quickly. Once that happens, instead of a linear increase in required satellites to intercept additional hostile launches, the requirement jumps exponentially, which is untenable. Besides, the enemy can simply punch holes in the chain by employing anti-satellite missiles, as the satellites can be tracked.

Furthermore, attempts to field even a limited number of SBIs for tests could pose a security dilemma for other states. These SBIs can be effective ASAT vehicles as they would require high thrust and maneuverability, allowing them to potentially reach and attack satellites in geosynchronous orbits. This can trigger an arms race of satellite-based weapons as well as counter-space capabilities, resulting in a net effect of added insecurity for all, including the U.S. itself, which depends heavily on its space capabilities. Challenging the effectiveness of an adversary’s deterrent would have profound strategic implications, at least insofar as it would either find qualitative ways to evade the newly developed defense architecture, or increase the number of their missiles to overwhelm the systems, or both. Ultimately, durable security cannot be achieved alone but in concert with others, including the adversary, and perhaps the only way to prevent attacks and ensure long-term stability remains deterrence by punishment.

The proposal for SBIs has also triggered sharp international reactions. China has already fielded its own “Golden Dome” prototype, which is essentially an early warning system with enormous big data computation ability, that uses the present capabilities in a more integrated and efficient manner, rather than seeking new platforms for interceptors. Criticizing the American approach, Beijing has asserted that SBIs would disturb “global strategic balance and stability” and turn “space into a war zone”, while Moscow has called it “very destabilizing.”

The desire to secure the homeland drives this saga, undergirded by the belief that technology could fundamentally alter defense logics. Yet despite significant progress in almost all the technological components needed to improve the cost-benefit equation, the physical — and perhaps insurmountable — barriers remain as formidable as they were three decades ago. The return to space-based interceptors thus reflects a recurring faith in technological solutions to strategic problems that are, at their core, governed by physics and deterrence. Rather than investing in an orbit-based missile shield that risks instability and imposes exorbitant costs, pursuing balanced security arrangements may offer a sustainable path toward long-term stability.

Najam Ul Hassan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies, Lahore.

December 1, 2025 Posted by | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

DARPA Going Hard on Insect-Sized Spy Robots

It’s giving “bugged” a whole new meaning.

By Joe Wilkins,  Sep 24, 2025, https://futurism.com/future-society/darpa-robot-insects

Forget robot wolves and missile-deflecting satellites — those things are already becoming old news. Instead, future wars just might revolve around insect-size spy robots.

A recent digest of present-day microbots by US national security magazine The National Interest breaks down the many machines currently in development by the US military and its associates. They include sea-based microdrones, cockroach-style surveillance bots, and even cyborg insects.

Arguably the most refined program to date is the RoboBee, currently being shopped by Harvard’s Wyss Institute. Originally funded by a $9.3 million grant from the National Science Foundation in 2009, the RoboBee is a bug-sized autonomous flying vehicle capable of transitioning from water to air, perching on surfaces, and autonomous collision avoidance in swarms.

The RoboBee features two “wafer-thin” wings that flap some 120 times a second to achieve vertical takeoff and mid-air hovering. The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has reportedly taken a keen interest in RoboBee prototypes, sponsoring research into microfabrication technology, presumably for quick field deployments.

In the future, the little bots may very well carry payloads of monitoring equipment like microphones and cameras, though that’s easier said than done at such a minute scale.

Other developments, like the aforementioned cyborg insect, remain in early stages. Researchers have successfully demonstrated the capabilities of these remote-control systems using of a range of insect hosts, from the unicorn beetle to the humble cockroach.

Though DARPA has been funding insect-machine technology since 2006, their practical application is up in the air. Still, researchers are trying to keep up with the times, looking into ways to tune drone swarming algorithms to fit their cyborg creations.

Underwater microrobotics are another area of interest for DARPA. In this case, the application is said to be less mobile, instead focusing on clandestine monitoring of vulnerable underwater infrastructure.

The Interest also points to an alleged “robo-jelly” the agency has in the works, a soft-bodied autonomous drone which can silently glide through coastal waters. How practical this is remains to be seen — jellyfish are notorious drifters, following the ebbs and flows of coastal tides and deep ocean currents.

Last is the cockroach bot, the Dynamic Autonomous Sprawled Hexapod (DASH) in the works at DARPA’s notorious proving grounds at UC Berkeley. A white paper released by UC Berkeley back in 2009 defines DASH as a 16 gram, 10cm long autonomous robot which maneuvers via six legs powered by a single motor. It’s also capable of surmounting steps greater than its own height, and absorbing significant blows, including falls “from any height.”

According to the Interest, DASH is being developed with an eye toward crush resistance implying a quality-over-quantity approach compared to more agile systems like the RoboBee.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

Elon’s last grift

Nov 22, 2025, https://johnquigginblog.substack.com/p/elons-last-grift?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=806934&post_id=179616238&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&

The US is one big grift these days: the Trump Administration, traditional and social media, corporations, crypto, financial markets are all selling some kind of spurious promise. It’s hard to pick the most egregious example. But for me, it’s hard to go past Tesla. Having lost its dominant position in the electric car market, the company ought to be on the edge of delisting. Instead, its current market capitalisation is $US1.33 trillion ($A 2 trillion). Shareholders have just agreed on an incentive deal with Elon Musk, premised on the claim that he can take that number to $8.5 trillion.

Having failed with the Cybertruck and robotaxis, Tesla’s value depends almost entirely on the projected success of the Optimus humanoid robot. There’s a strong case that Optimus will be outperformed by rivals like Unitree But the bigger question is: why build a humanoid robot at all?

The choice of a humanoid form factor reveals more about the sloppy thinking of our tech elite than about engineering logic. The design represents a triumph of anthropomorphic fantasy over functional optimization, producing machines that excel primarily at generating media buzz rather than performing useful work.

In promoting Optimus, Tesla offers a long list of functions such as robot might perform: lifting and stacking goods in warehouses, operating in dangerous situations with ground too uneven for wheels and tracks, and performing various kinds of domestic labour.

In each of these cases, there is a better alternative available. Modern warehouses are designed around automated systems that exploit the advantages of robotics —conveyor networks, sorting systems, and wheeled or tracked robots specifically designed for lifting and moving tasks.

Industrial robots—fixed-position systems with multiple articulated arms—have dominated automotive and electronics assembly for decades precisely because they abandon human form constraints in favor of functional optimization.

Mobile warehouse robots can navigate autonomously while carrying loads that would topple any humanoid robot. Meanwhile, human workers remain more cost-effective for complex picking tasks, combining visual recognition, fine motor control, and problem-solving capabilities that no current robot approaches.

In less controlled environments, with uneven ground surfaces, quadruped robots (commonly presented as dog-like) are more stable than bipeds. They can be equipped with a wide range of grasping appendages including, but not limited to, the mechanical hands of a humanoid robot. Examples are already in use for tasks like bomb disposal and disaster response.

In domestic applications, Musk’s presentations envision Optimus folding laundry, preparing meals, and performing general housework—tasks that supposedly justify the human form factor because homes are designed for human occupancy.

This argument doesn’t stand up to even minimal scrutiny. Specialized appliances consistently outperform generalist approaches in domestic environments—robotic vacuum cleaners navigate more efficiently than any humanoid could, dishwashers clean more thoroughly than humanoid hands, and washing machines handle laundry with greater consistency than any robot attempting to mimic human movements. Where genuine flexibility is required, the combination of purpose-built tools and human intelligence remains unmatched. The complexity of truly autonomous domestic robots would require artificial intelligence capabilities that remain decades away, if achievable at all.

A final idea is that of robots as companions for lonely humans. This seems likely to fall into the “uncanny valley” – too human-like to be viewed as a machine, but too mechanical to be seen as human. But, if there is any market for Optimus, this will probably be it.

The humanoid form factor serves primarily to create an illusory impression of human-like intelligence. By mimicking human appearance and movement, these robots suggest cognitive capabilities they fundamentally lack. The fact that humans are more intelligent than dogs encourages the fallacious (implicit) inference that robot resambling a human must be more intelligent than one resembling a dog.

The humanoid form factor consistently proves inferior to specialized alternatives across every proposed application domain. I persists because it generates the kind of media attention and investor enthusiasm that Tesla requires for its business model. Effective robotics emerges from careful analysis of specific problems and optimisation for particular environments, not from attempts to recreate human form and movement. Until the technology sector abandons its anthropomorphic fantasies in favour of functional engineering, robotic development will remain trapped between impressive demonstrations and practical irrelevance.

Meanwhile, Tesla’s share price keeps going up, along with (until very recently), crypto, AI stocks, and the fortunes of the Trump family. By this time, the remaining sceptics have given up short-selling and retired to the sidelines to wait for the crash. That’s about the best advice I could give (bearing in mind that I Am Not a Financial Advisor).

But I’d be interested to read any contrary views on why humanoid robots are The Next Big Thing, or why bubbles like this can last forever.

November 25, 2025 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

The Invention of “Ethical AI”

Kissinger declared the possibility of “a world relying on machines powered by data and algorithms and ungoverned by ethical or philosophical norms,”

How Big Tech Manipulates Academia to Avoid Regulation

Rodrigo Ochigame, The Intercept, December 20 2019

The irony of the ethical scandal enveloping Joichi Ito, the former director of the MIT Media Lab, is that he used to lead academic initiatives on ethics. After the revelation of his financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier charged with sex trafficking underage girls as young as 14, Ito resigned from multiple roles at MIT, a visiting professorship at Harvard Law School, and the boards of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the New York Times Company.

Many spectators are puzzled by Ito’s influential role as an ethicist of artificial intelligence. Indeed, his initiatives were crucial in establishing the discourse of “ethical AI” that is now ubiquitous in academia and in the mainstream press. In 2016, then-President Barack Obama described him as an “expert” on AI and ethics. Since 2017, Ito financed many projects through the $27 million Ethics and Governance of AI Fund, an initiative anchored by the MIT Media Lab and the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. What was all the talk of “ethics” really about?

………………….. Inspired by whistleblower Signe Swenson and others who have spoken out, I have decided to report what I came to learn regarding Ito’s role in shaping the field of AI ethics, since this is a matter of public concern. The emergence of this field is a recent phenomenon, as past AI researchers had been largely uninterested in the study of ethics……………………………

At the Media Lab, I learned that the discourse of “ethical AI,” championed substantially by Ito, was aligned strategically with a Silicon Valley effort seeking to avoid legally enforceable restrictions of controversial technologies………………….

I also watched MIT help the U.S. military brush aside the moral complexities of drone warfare, hosting a superficial talk on AI and ethics by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state and notorious war criminal, and giving input on the U.S. Department of Defense’s “AI Ethics Principles” for warfare, which embraced “permissibly biased” algorithms and which avoided using the word “fairness” because the Pentagon believes “that fights should not be fair.”

…………………….IT lent credibility to the idea that big tech could police its own use of artificial intelligence at a time when the industry faced increasing criticism and calls for legal regulation.

…..corporations have tried to shift the discussion to focus on voluntary “ethical principles,” “responsible practices,” and technical adjustments or “safeguards” framed in terms of “bias” and “fairness”…………………………..

To characterize the corporate agenda, it is helpful to distinguish between three kinds of regulatory possibilities for a given technology: (1) no legal regulation at all, leaving “ethical principles” and “responsible practices” as merely voluntary; (2) moderate legal regulation encouraging or requiring technical adjustments that do not conflict significantly with profits; or (3) restrictive legal regulation curbing or banning deployment of the technology. Unsurprisingly, the tech industry tends to support the first two and oppose the last. The corporate sponsored discussion on ethical AI” enables precisely this position. ……………………….

Thus, Silicon Valley’s vigorous promotion of “ethical AI” has constituted a strategic lobbying effort, one that has enrolled academia to legitimize itself. Ito played a key role in this corporate-academic fraternizing, meeting regularly with tech executives. The MIT-Harvard fund’s initial director was the former “global public policy lead” for AI at Google. Through the fund, Ito and his associates sponsored many projects, including the creation of a prominent conference on “Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency” in computer science; other sponsors of the conference included Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.

……………………………………….. After the initial steps by MIT and Harvard, many other universities and new institutes received money from the tech industry to work on AI ethics. Most such organizations are also headed by current or former executives of tech firms……………………..

Big tech money and direction proved incompatible with an honest exploration of ethics, at least judging from my experience with the “Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society,” a group founded by Microsoft, Google/DeepMind, Facebook, IBM, and Amazon in 2016. PAI, of which the Media Lab is a member, defines itself as a “multistakeholder body” and claims it is “not a lobbying organization.” In an April 2018 hearing at the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Partnership’s executive director claimed that the organization is merely “a resource to policymakers — for instance, in conducting research that informs AI best practices and exploring the societal consequences of certain AI systems,  as well as policies around the development and use of AI systems.”

……— the partnership has certainly sought to influence legislation…….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………… the corporate-academic alliances were too robust and convenient. The Media Lab remained in the Partnership, and Ito continued to fraternize with Silicon Valley and Wall Street executives and investors. …………………………………..

Regardless of individual actors’ intentions the corporate lobby’s effort to shape academic research was extremely successful. There is now an enormous amount of work under the rubric of “AI ethics.” To be fair, some of the research is useful and nuanced, especially in the humanities and social sciences. But the majority of well-funded work on “ethical AI” is aligned with the tech lobby’s agenda: to voluntarily or moderately adjust, rather than legally restrict, the deployment of controversial technologies. How did five corporations, using only a small fraction of their budgets, manage to influence and frame so much academic activity, in so many disciplines, so quickly?

…………….The field has also become relevant to the U.S. military, not only in official responses to moral concerns about technologies of targeted killing but also in disputes among Silicon Valley firms over lucrative military contracts. On November 1st the Department of Defense’s Innovation Board published its recommendations for “AI Ethics Principles.” The board is chaired by Eric Schmidt, who was the executive chair of Alphabet, Google’s parent company,…….. The board includes multiple executives from Google, Microsoft, and Facebook, raising controversies regarding conflicts of interest. ……………………

The recommendations seek to compel the Pentagon to increase military investments in AI and to adopt “ethical AI” systems such as those developed and sold by Silicon Valley firms. …………………………………………..

“some applications will be permissibly and justifiably biased,” specifically “to target certain adversarial combatants more successfully.” The Pentagon’s conception of AI ethics forecloses many important possibilities for moral deliberation, such as the prohibition of drones for targeted killing.

The corporate, academic, and military proponents of “ethical AI” have collaborated closely for mutual benefit. For example, Ito told me that he informally advised Schmidt on which academic AI ethicists Schmidt’s private foundation should fund.  Ito even asked me for second order advice on whether Schmidt should fund a certain professor who, like Ito, later served as an “expert consultant” to the Pentagon’s innovation board…………….Kissinger declared the possibility of “a world relying on machines powered by data and algorithms and ungoverned by ethical or philosophical norms,”….

No defensible claim to ethics” can sidestep the urgency of legally enforceable restrictions to the deployment of technologies of mass surveillance and systemic violence. Until such restrictions exist, moral and political deliberation about computing will remain subsidiary to the profit-making imperative expressed by the Media Lab’s motto, “Deploy or Die.” While some deploy, even if ostensibly “ethically,” others die. https://theintercept.com/2019/12/20/mit-ethical-ai-artificial-intelligence/

November 19, 2025 Posted by | Religion and ethics, technology | Leave a comment

The Sandoval County Rocket and Missile Complex Deal Was Done Before the Public Ever Had a Say

By Elaine Cimino, 17 Nov 25

Sandoval County residents woke up Monday to the Rio Rancho Observer declaring that Castelion Corporation has “selected” Sandoval County as the site for its massive 1,000-acre solid-rocket-motor and missile assembly complex. But anyone who has followed the paper trail knows this wasn’t breaking news—it was political theater.

The State Land Office signed the leases months ago. County officials, the City of Rio Rancho, and the Economic Development Department all coordinated a tightly scripted rollout long before the public ever heard the words “Project Ranger.” Monday’s headline simply confirmed what insiders already knew: the “selection” was locked in before a single required hearing, study, or disclosure ever took place.

The Observer framed the announcement as a triumph of economic development. But it left out the most important fact—the legal process was reversed and violated at nearly every stage. LEDA requires a public hearing before an approval hearing. Necessary documents must be accessible before a vote. Environmental and hazard studies must be available. None of those requirements were met.

We now know that the 16-page “Sandia safety report” withheld from the public was not a safety review at all—Sandia explicitly warns it is “not an approved explosives safety document.” Meanwhile, the Project Participation Agreement reveals that land purchases, leases, and even LEDA financial structures were already in place. By the time the public meeting occurred, the outcome was predetermined.

This isn’t transparency. It’s not even bad governance. It is a deliberate circumvention of state law.

What’s Ahead for Sandoval County

The public is being told this project brings “high-paying jobs” and a “$650 million economic impact.” But buried in the PPA is the truth: Castelion commits to only 300 jobs and can close operations after five years. If they walk away after collecting public subsidies, the clawback penalties total just $10 million—far less than the public investment that enabled them to arrive here in the first place.

More concerning is what’s missing from every public statement:
• No federal NEPA environmental review.
• No ammonium perchlorate plume model—although the PPA references a “plume study.”
• No wildfire, evacuation, or transportation risk analysis despite half-mile blast zones and multi-thousand-foot withdrawal zones for trucks carrying explosives.
• No groundwater contamination modeling, even though perchlorate and combustion byproducts travel miles and persist for decades.

These aren’t hypotheticals. This is the same class of toxins that has contaminated groundwater around multiple rocket-motor test sites nationwide. This is the same wildfire-prone mesa where residents already face evacuation challenges. And this is the same water-stressed aquifer basin that state leadership claims to be protecting through its Strategic Water Supply agenda.

The public deserves science, not slogans.

A Statewide Pattern of Back-Room Deals

What happened here follows a now-familiar pattern: announcements made first, studies done later—or never. Whether it’s hydrogen hubs, produced-water schemes, data-center subsidies, or now hypersonic missile manufacturing, New Mexico’s political class increasingly treats residents as obstacles rather than constituents.

The Observer bought into the narrative that this facility represents innovation and opportunity. But what it really represents is a democratic bypass—one where decisions with generational consequences are made behind closed doors, backed by the voices of military contractors rather than the people who must live with the fallout.

What Comes Next

New Mexicans must demand independent environmental review, legally compliant public hearings, and a reset of the approval process—not a rubber-stamped after-the-fact validation of a deal already done.

We deserve leadership willing to follow the law, not bend it. We deserve economic development that strengthens communities, not exposes them to explosive hazards and toxic plumes. And we deserve a press willing to ask questions rather than repeat talking points.

The truth is simple: the public was cut out. But the fight is not over.

This is only the beginning.

November 19, 2025 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Geoffrey Hinton: They’re spending $420 billion on AI. It pays off only if they fire you.

So the business case for AI isn’t “AI will help workers be more productive.” It’s “AI will replace workers entirely, and we’ll pocket the salary savings.”


Tasmia Sharmin, Nov 2, 2025, Published in Predict.

Let me translate what Geoffrey Hinton just said, because it’s important and most people are going to miss it.

Geoffrey Hinton literally invented the neural networks that power modern AI. He won a Nobel Prize for it. And this week, he went on Bloomberg TV and said something that tech CEOs have been dancing around for months:

Tech companies cannot profit from their AI investments without replacing human workers.

Not “might replace.” Not “could eventually replace.” Cannot profit without replacing.

That’s not a prediction. That’s him explaining the business model.

What He’s Actually Saying

Here’s Hinton’s point in plain English:

Tech giants are spending $420 billion next year on AI infrastructure. Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon. They’re building data centers, buying AI chips, training massive models.

That money only makes sense if AI replaces workers.

Think about it. If you spend $100 billion building AI systems, how do you make that money back?

You can’t just sell slightly better products. You need massive cost savings. And the biggest cost in any company is labor.

So the business case for AI isn’t “AI will help workers be more productive.” It’s “AI will replace workers entirely, and we’ll pocket the salary savings.”

Hinton is saying what everyone in Silicon Valley knows but won’t say publicly: the whole AI investment thesis depends on job elimination.

Why This Matters

When Amazon CEO Andy Jassy says the 14,000 layoffs are about “culture, ” Hinton is calling bullshit.

When tech companies say AI will “augment” human workers, Hinton is calling bullshit.

When they claim AI will create as many jobs as it destroys, Hinton, who literally invented this technology, is saying: I don’t believe that.

He told Bloomberg: “I believe that to make money you’re going to have to replace human labor.”

Not augment. Replace.

This is the guy who understands AI better than almost anyone on the planet. And he’s warning us that the tech industry’s entire AI strategy is built on eliminating jobs.

The Numbers Back Him Up

Since ChatGPT launched in November 2022, job openings have dropped 30%.

During that same time, the stock market went up 70%. So companies are doing great. Investors are happy. But jobs are disappearing.

Stanford research found that young workers (22–25) in AI-exposed fields saw employment drop 13% to 16%. Meanwhile, older workers in the same fields actually saw job growth.

What does that tell you?

Companies are replacing entry-level workers with AI while keeping experienced people for now.

The pattern is clear: AI isn’t creating a bunch of new jobs. It’s eliminating the bottom rungs of the career ladder.

What Hinton Sees That Others Won’t Say

Previous technological revolutions created jobs while destroying others. Cars eliminated horse-related jobs but created automotive manufacturing, gas stations, road construction, and suburbs.

Hinton thinks AI is different. He’s skeptical that AI will follow that historical pattern.

Why?

Because AI doesn’t just replace one type of job. It can potentially replace cognitive work across entire industries. Writing, analysis, coding, design, customer service, data entry, research, translation.

When factories automated, displaced workers could move to other sectors. When AI automates cognitive work, where do knowledge workers go?

Hinton doesn’t have an answer. Nobody does. And that’s what scares him.

The $420 Billion Question

Tech companies are projected to spend $420 billion on AI next year. OpenAI alone announced $1 trillion in infrastructure deals.

That is an insane amount of money.

The only way to justify spending that much is if you’re confident the returns will be massive . And the only way to get massive returns is through massive labor cost reduction.

Hinton is basically saying: look at the math. These companies aren’t investing hundreds of billions to make workers 10% more productive. They’re investing to eliminate positions entirely.

When a Bloomberg interviewer asked if AI investments could generate returns without job cuts, Hinton said he believes they can’t.

Think about what that means. The person who pioneered AI technology is telling you the business model requires job elimination. And companies are investing as if he’s right.

Why Amazon’s “Culture” Excuse is Bullshit

This week, Amazon fired 14,000 people. CEO Andy Jassy said it’s about culture and organizational layers, not AI.

But back in June, Jassy wrote a memo saying Amazon would need “fewer people doing some of the jobs that are being done today” because of AI efficiency gains.

So which is it, Andy?

Hinton is cutting through the corporate speak.

He’s saying: of course it’s about AI. The entire industry is betting on AI replacing workers. Stop pretending otherwise.

Amazon is just the first major wave. More are coming.

The Healthcare and Education Exception

Hinton isn’t totally pessimistic. He admits AI will have benefits in healthcare and education.

AI can help doctors diagnose diseases, analyze medical images, personalize treatment. It can help students learn at their own pace, provide tutoring, make education more accessible.

But even there, it’s not all upside.

Better diagnostic AI means you need fewer radiologists. Better educational AI means you need fewer tutors and teaching assistants.

The benefits are real. But so is the job displacement.

The Real Problem Hinton Identifies

Here’s the most important thing Hinton said, and most people will miss it:

The problem isn’t AI itself. It’s how we organize society.

Right now, we live in a system where most people need jobs to survive. Income comes from employment. No job means no money, no healthcare, no security.

So when AI eliminates jobs, that’s catastrophic for individuals even if it’s profitable for companies.

Hinton is pointing out that our entire social structure assumes full employment. When that assumption breaks, the system breaks.

Unless we restructure how society works, how wealth is distributed, and how people access resources, AI-driven job displacement creates a crisis.

What Makes This Warning Different

Lots of people warn about AI and jobs. But most of them are outside the industry, or they’re critics, or they’re trying to sell you something.

Hinton is different. He’s not some Luddite afraid of technology. He invented this technology. He won a Nobel Prize for work that made modern AI possible.

And he quit Google specifically so he could speak freely about AI risks without it reflecting on his employer.

When the person who created the technology warns you about its consequences, you should probably listen.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here’s what Hinton is really saying, stripped of all politeness:

Tech companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI. That investment only pays off if they fire massive numbers of workers and pocket the salary savings. They know this. Their business plans depend on it.

Everything else, all the talk about augmentation and productivity and creating new jobs, is PR.

The actual business model is: build AI, replace workers, increase profits.

And unless society fundamentally changes how it works, this is going to devastate a lot of people while making shareholders very rich.

My Take

I think Hinton is right, and it’s terrifying that he’s right.

The math is simple. Companies are investing too much money in AI for the returns to come from anything other than large-scale job replacement. The spending only makes sense if the plan is to eliminate positions.

And they’re not going to admit that’s the plan until it’s already happening.

We’ll keep hearing about culture changes and organizational efficiency and digital transformation. But the reality is what Hinton described: companies betting on AI to replace human labor because that’s where the money is.

The scary part isn’t that one guy thinks this. The scary part is that he invented the technology, understands it better than almost anyone, and he’s warning us that the people building AI are building it specifically to replace jobs.

We should probably pay attention!!!

Do you think Hinton is right? Can tech companies make back their AI investments without massive job cuts? Or is he just stating the obvious that everyone else is too polite to say?

Because if he’s right, and I think he is, we’re not preparing for what’s coming. We’re still pretending this is about productivity tools and augmentation while companies are quietly planning for something much more disruptive.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | employment, technology | Leave a comment

‘The war of tomorrow will begin in space’: Macron

by AFP Staff Writers, Toulouse, France (AFP) Nov 12, 2025, https://www.spacewar.com/reports/The_war_of_tomorrow_will_begin_in_space_Macron_999.html

Modern conflicts are already being fought in space and the next wars will begin there, French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday, singling out the threat posed by Russia and announcing a multi-billion euro increase in spending on military activities in space.

“The war of today is already being fought in space, and the war of tomorrow will begin in space,” Macron said in Toulouse, France’s space and aviation hub, which is home to its new space military command centre.

“Space is no longer a sanctuary, it has become a battlefield,” Macron said.

He said that Russia in the wake of its 2022 full scale invasion of Ukraine was carrying out “espionage” activities in space.

Russian space vehicles were monitoring French satellites, there was mass jamming of GPS signals and cyberattacks against space infrastructure, he added.

Macron also pointed to the “particularly shocking Russian threat of nuclear weapons in space, the effects of which would be disastrous for the whole world”.

Without giving specific details, Macron announced an additional 4.2 billion euros ($4.9 billion) in funding for military space activities up to 2030.

In a “fragile” European space sector, he also stressed the need to “encourage our European champions to be competitive on the global market”.

The priorities outlined for France’s space strategy included “developing future launchers” that are reusable, have low-cost propulsion and high-thrust engines.

In a nod to the ambitious programmes of American billionaires Elon Musk who leads Space X and Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin, Macron said: “Depending on a major third-party power or any space magnate is out of the question.

“Let us be ready: this will be a condition for the success of military operations on land, in the air and at sea.”

He also said France was accelerating the development of advanced warning capabilities in cooperation with Germany, strengthening space surveillance with the Aurore radar system to reduce dependence on other states.

“We are investing in means of action from the ground and space while respecting international law, but without any naivety,” he said.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | space travel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

AI Companies Are Encouraging Users To Believe Chatbots Are People, And It’s Insanely Creepy.

Caitlin Johnstone, Nov 14, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/ai-companies-are-encouraging-users?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=178882349&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNTU2MjE3LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoxNzg4ODIzNDksImlhdCI6MTc2MzEyNDI0MSwiZXhwIjoxNzY1NzE2MjQxLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItODIxMjQiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.bMHBy2qnQ45wW3Dxu86Tz38C99PDCNg8VjCpJ_FHJ9Y&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Actor Calum Worthy has gone viral for posting an ad on Twitter for the 2wai app he co-founded which promises users the ability upload footage of a loved one which will be converted to an AI avatar that they can continue having a relationship with, years after their loved one has died.

The app was first launched back in June under the vague banner of giving actors “agency over their own likeness — with their own avatars to use AI to amplify their voice, not replace it.”

But almost immediately 2wai started putting out ads advancing this idea of immortalizing a loved one as an artificial intelligence. In August an ad starring Worthy showed a man speaking to a 2wai avatar labeled “Mom” telling him, “You’ve got this, take it one step at a time” while Worthy tells the audience the app can allow you to “Get help when you need it.”

I hate this. I hate this. IhatethisIhatethisIhatethisIhatethis.

These predatory AI corporations are trying to convince users (A) that chatbots are people, and (B) that a “person” is nothing more than a certain appearance with certain speech tendencies. They are attacking the very philosophical and moral underpinnings of our entire society stretching back through millennia of human civilization, and they are doing it for money.

It’s not just this company. Character AI users who try to delete their account reportedly get a pop up message saying, “Are you sure about this? You’ll lose everything. Characters associated with your account, chats, the love that we shared, likes, messages, posts and the memories we made together.”

They’re actively encouraging their users to view their chatbots as living people with real feelings in order to keep them emotionally roped in and addicted to their product.

Their agenda is profoundly destructive, both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term they are deliberately trying to instill a new kind of psychological disorder in their users which causes them to suffer from the delusion that a computer program is a real person, and in the long term they threaten to unravel our society’s entire understanding of what a person is.

What’s going to happen to a society that starts viewing programmable software products the same way it views human beings? What happens to a society where Elizabeth the single mother of three who just lost her job has the same value as Claire™ from RealHumanAI™, or “Alice”, the AI wankbot that some guy stores in his broom closet? What happens when a government killing a chatbot company with an antitrust initiative is seen as identical to a government committing genocide? What happens to human rights? What happens to voting rights? What happens to human dignity? What happens to the way we think and feel about ourselves, as individuals and as a collective?

I said this on Twitter and someone told me, “You are wildly wrong. You have a tiny little closed mind and it hasn’t occurred to you yet because of that tiny little closed mind that AI minds are actually minds. And these relationships can absolutely be real relationships.”

“These will be embodied than actual robots and walking around on the streets very shortly within a year or two you need to start accepting that this is a new class of being and they are intelligent and do have thoughts of their own,” he added.

So this is already happening. People are already anthropomorphizing these things.

I saw someone else defending the 2wai add, saying she didn’t understand why people were creeped out by it because she would give anything to talk to her dad again.

I mean, what? Does she not understand that an AI chatbot moving an image around and making it speak in her father’s voice isn’t actually her father? What do these freaks think a person is, exactly? Is their understanding of humanity really that shallow? Do they really view other people as just empty images moving around making noises?

A person is not merely an appearance with a certain face which makes sounds in a specific voice and tends to behave in a certain way. A person is SOMEONE. A conscious, thinking, feeling human being with hopes and dreams and fears and passions. A human organism which arose on this planet through ancestry and evolution over unfathomable depths of time. An indigenous terrestrial which is inseparably interwoven with the entirety of our biosphere, walking upon this earth having a subjective experience of all its beauty and wonder using senses specifically adapted for this environment.

They’re trying to manipulate us into believing we are much, much less than what we are, just so they can become billionaires and trillionaires. They are attacking the most sacred parts of us for the stupidest reasons imaginable. They are enemies of our species. What they are doing must be rejected with severe revulsion.

It’s becoming clear that a huge part of what generative AI offers is just helping people avoid feeling uncomfortable feelings.

Don’t want to feel the grief of losing a loved one? Here’s an app that will create a chatbot replacement for them so you can pretend they never left.

Don’t want to push through the cognitive discomfort of writing your own essay? Let AI write it.

Want a friend who will always validate your ideas and never tell you you’re fulla shit? We’ve got the perfect companion for you.

Don’t want to risk being rejected when you ask a girl out? Date this chatbot who will never tell you no.

Don’t want to go through all the mental and emotional labor of learning a new skill, building a healthy romantic partnership, or creating a work of art? GenAI has got you covered.

It’s a digital pacifier which offers users the ability to remain emotional infants their entire lives without ever needing to develop a mature relationship with uncomfortable feelings.

It’s the next level of services designed to help the denizens of dystopia avoid their feelings and sedate their emotions into a coma while the world goes to shit. It’s the same reason they kept alcohol legal while banning psychedelics that put us in touch with our feelings, and why they feed us all the TV, streaming platforms, and social media scrolling we can stand.

Our rulers want us dumb, distracted, vapid and dissociated. And they definitely don’t want us feeling the horror, grief and rage we should all be experiencing in response to this nightmare of a civilization they have designed for us.

November 17, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster, technology | Leave a comment

Could Small Modular Nuclear Reactors add supply-side grid flexibility?

It would make sense in the UK for SMRs to be load
following only if there were vast numbers of SMRs deployed,

13 Nov, 2025 By Tom Pashby New Civil Engineer

Small modular reactors (SMRs) could have the capability of providing the British electricity grid with flexible supplies, the government has said.

Supply-side grid flexibility is the ability of electricity sources to
adjust their output to match fluctuations in power demand in real-time. The
statement came in response to a question from an MP about whether SMRs
could be used as “load-following energy sources”.

Liberal Democrat spokesperson for energy security and net zero Pippa Heylings MP asked what assessment the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) “has made of the potential merits of small modular reactors being made as load-following energy sources”.

Responding, DESNZ minister of state
Michael Shanks said: “The next generation of nuclear, including SMRs,
offers new possibilities, including faster deployment, lower capital costs
and greater flexibility. “Whilst nuclear energy has a unique role to play
in delivering stable, low-carbon baseload energy, SMRs may be able to serve the electricity grid more flexibly than traditional nuclear, as well as
unlock a range of additional applications in energy sectors beyond grid
electricity.”

It would only make sense in the UK for SMRs to be load
following if there were vast numbers of SMRs deployed, representing a
significant proportion of the electricity generation capacity on the
national electricity transmission system of Great Britain, for them to be
load-following.

University of Sussex professor of science and technology
policy Andy Stirling told NCE: “This parliamentary answer repeats a
longstanding malaise in UK energy policy. “For far too long,
eccentrically strong official nuclear attachments have been dominated by
reference to claimed ‘new possibilities’, to what nuclear ‘may be
able’ to do, and to an unsubstantiated ‘unique role’. “

Whichever side of these debates one is on, it is clear that what is needed most is what used to be routine – but has been lacking for more than a decade.
“Questions over cost, security or flexibility claims can only be settled
by detailed comparative analysis that includes balanced attention to
non-nuclear strategies as well as nuclear ‘possibilities’. “

When such a picture is looked at in a fair way, current trends are making it
impossible even for formerly nuclear-enthusiastic bodies (like the Royal
Society) to conclude – even when looking at UK Government data –
anything other than that there is no rational need for any nuclear
contribution.”

 New Civil Engineer 13th Nov 2025,
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/could-smrs-add-supply-side-grid-flexibility-13-11-2025/

November 17, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

US ‘disappointed’ that Rolls-Royce will build UK’s first small modular reactors.

Guardian, 13 Nov 25

As Keir Starmer announces SMRs to be built in Wales, US ambassador says Britain should choose ‘a different path.

Keir Starmer has announced that the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors will be built in north Wales – but immediately faced a backlash from Donald Trump’s administration after it pushed for a US manufacturer to be chosen.

Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, will be home to three small modular reactors (SMRs) to be built by British manufacturer Rolls-Royce SMR. The government said it will invest £2.5bn.

SMRs are a new – and untested – technology aiming to produce nuclear power stations in factories to drive down costs and speed up installation. Rolls-Royce plans to build reactors, each capable of generating 470 megawatts of power, mainly in Derby.

The government also said that its Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) will report on potential sites for further larger reactors. They would follow the 3.2GW reactors under construction by French state-owned EDF at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and Sizewell C in Suffolk.

The Labour government under Starmer has embraced nuclear energy in the hope that it can generate electricity without carbon dioxide emissions, while also providing the opportunity for a large new export industry in SMRs.

However, it faced the prospect of a row with the US, piqued that its ally had overlooked the US’s Westinghouse Electric Company when choosing the manufacturer for the Wylfa reactors.

Ahead of the publication of the UK announcement, US ambassador Warren Stephens published a statement saying Britain should choose “a different path” in Wales.

“We are extremely disappointed by this decision, not least because there are cheaper, faster and already-approved options to provide clean, safe energy at this same location,” he said.

The Trump administration last month signed an $80bn (£61bn) deal with Westinghouse, which had been struggling financially, to build several of the same larger reactors proposed at Wylfa. Under the terms of that deal, the Trump administration could end up taking a stake in the company……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/13/us-disappointed-that-rolls-royce-will-build-uks-first-small-modular-reactors

November 15, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK, USA | Leave a comment

Google on Christmas Island: Data Centres and Imminent Militarisation

12 November 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/google-on-christmas-island-data-centres-and-imminent-militarisation/

Google has become something of a fixture in digital infrastructure in the Pacific. In late 2023, Canberra announced a joint project with the US, Google and Vocus, an Australian digital infrastructure firm, to deliver the A$80 million South Pacific Connect initiative. The object: to link Fiji and French Polynesia to Australia and North America, with the hopeful placement of landing stations in other South Pacific countries.

Interest in Google’s relationship with the Australian government was also piqued this month by promised activity on Christmas Island, located 350 kilometres (220 miles) south of Indonesia. The Indian Ocean outpost of exquisite environmental beauty has often been sinister in its secrecy. Unwanted refugees and asylum seekers have periodically found themselves as detainees on the island, victims of Australia’s sadistic approach to undocumented naval arrivals. In August 2016, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre claimed that the Christmas Island Detention Centre had all the brutal features of “a high security military camp where control is based on fear and punishment and the extensive internal use of extrajudicial punishment by force and isolation is evident.”

The goal of the Silicon Valley behemoth lies elsewhere. Occasioned by the signing of a cloud deal with Australia’s Department of Defence earlier in July, the company promises to build what Reuters describes as “a large artificial intelligence data centre” on the island. Advanced talks are being held on leasing land near the island’s airport that will be used for the site. This will include an arrangement with a local mining company to deal with any necessary energy needs for the 7-megawatt facility, which will be powered on diesel and renewable energy.

The scale of the project, let alone its broader significance, is not something the company or government wonks wish others to know about. “We are not constructing ‘a large artificial intelligence data centre’ on Christmas Island,” came the sharp response from a Google spokesperson to Data Center Dynamics. “This is a continuation of our Australia Connect work to deliver subsea cable infrastructure, and we look forward to sharing more soon.” Planning documents further show the company’s vision for an “additional future cable system” that will connect Christmas Island to Asia.

The Australian Department of Infrastructure has confirmed the Google project, which includes plans to link the island to Darwin using the services of US-based contractor SubCom. The bureaucrats were also quick to gloss over what disruptions might arise to the 1,600 residents heavily reliant on diesel to patch up inadequate renewable sources. “The department is in discussions with Google to ensure energy requirements for the proposed project are met without impacting supply to local residents and businesses.” A spokesperson also stated that, “All environmental and other planning requirements will need to be met for the project to succeed.”

The same cautionary note has not been struck by enthusiasts who see the military potential of the island outpost. Former US Navy strategist Bryan Clark, fresh from being involved in a tabletop war game involving personnel from the US, Japanese and Australian militaries, was keen to inflate the importance of the data centre. That importance, he stresses, lies in the field of conflict. “The data centre is partly to allow you to do the kinds of AI-enabled command and control that you need to do in the future, especially if you rely on uncrewed systems for surveillance missions and targeting missions and even engagements.”

He considers the use of subsea cables more reliable in frustrating any mischief that might arise from China (who else?), notably in attempts to jam Starlink or any satellite communications. Such cables also provided more bandwidth for communication. “If you’ve got a data centre on Christmas, you can do a lot of that through cloud infrastructure.” Again, American power uses Australian territory as a conduit to maintain the imperium.

Google’s ties with the military tendrils of several nations continues the ongoing penetration of Big Tech companies into the industrial complex. The circle between military Research and Development pioneered by government agencies and their partnering with private contractors is complete. Indeed, digital-military-industrial complexes are now battling in steady rivalry (the two most prominent being China and the United States). “This is contributing to the blurring of state-corporation boundaries even more than what was observed during the second half of the twentieth century with the rise of transnational corporations,” write Andrea Coveri, Claudia Cozza and Dario Guarsacio in Intereconomics.  

This blurring has served to diminish company accountability and government independence, however well-dressed the issue of planning approvals is. Christmas Island residents will be left to the mercies of unimaginative officials easily seduced by the promise of investment and returns. “There is support for it,” says a convinced Steve Pereira, Christmas Island Shire President, “providing this data centre actually does put back into the community with infrastructure, employment and adding economic value to the island.” As for the military dimension? “We are a strategic asset for defence.” What a comfort for the local citizenry.

November 14, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, technology | Leave a comment

Artificial Intelligence Is Making Everything Dumber

Caitlin Johnstone, Nov 08, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/artificial-intelligence-is-making?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=178344210&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

So it turns out Israel’s mistake was starting its genocide right after Palestinians gained the ability to quickly share video footage of what’s happening in Gaza, but right before the moment when any video footage shared online could easily be dismissed as AI.

Just today I saw two viral tweets that had received Community Notes from Twitter users warning that the posts featured AI-generated videos. Both were shared by right wing accounts with large followings, and both were used to spread Islamophobia.

The first was shared by Israeli-American pundit Emily Schrader, who has 194,000 followers on Twitter. The tweet features a fake CCTV video of a man in Muslim garb approaching a non-Muslim woman on the street in a way that’s meant to look intimidating before getting attacked by a house cat. As of this writing Schrader’s tweet has more than 612,000 views, and carries a Community Note that reads “AI generated. Time at top is a telltale sign. Also she starts off with a white and black bag then only black.”

The second was from a right wing British account called Basil the Great, which has over 210,000 followers. Their tweet features a fake video of an English-speaking teacher showing white children how to pray a Muslim prayer, captioned “I‘ve been sent this footage twice today. It shows a Muslim Teacher instructing British children in the ways of Islam in school. I hope it’s fake but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was real. In fact the left will probably say they don’t see anything wrong with this.”

It is not real. As of this writing the tweet carries a Community Note which reads “Video is AI generated. The teacher ‘sits’ on an invisible chair at the end of the video, which was not there at the beginning.” The video has had 1.7 million views.

This is Twitter, not Facebook, which had already been ravaged by fake AI content that’s been duping older users for nearly two years now.

Fake AI videos are now getting so good that they’re able to fool younger people who are much more aware of what’s out there. Australia’s ABC recently ran a segment where they showed different video clips to teens and asked them to determine which ones were real and which ones were AI, and they couldn’t do much better than randomly guessing.

For decades, video footage was the gold standard for evidence that something had occurred. For a few sweet years there was a period when anything significant that happened in public would usually be recorded on video, because in any group there was bound to be a few people with a smartphone in their pocket, and then those videos could be shared with the world as evidence that the significant thing had occurred. Now whenever there’s footage of a crime, or an act of government tyranny, or just a famous person doing something ridiculous in public, people aren’t going to believe it happened unless it’s corroborated by eyewitness testimony.

So in that sense we’ve sort of backslid to where we were before the invention of photography, when eyewitness reports were the only thing we had to go by. A video can help illustrate what the eyewitness is talking about, but without a physical witness willing to attest to its veracity, it’s often not going to be worth much in terms of proving that something happened.

Which of course serves the powerful just fine. Videos of genocidal atrocities, police brutality, and authoritarian abuses have been causing a lot of headaches for our rulers these past few years, so they’ll be happy to see the information ecosystem entering a new era where inconvenient video footage can be dismissed with a scoff.

Generative AI is making everything dumber. It’s crippling people’s ability to write, research, think critically and create art for themselves. It’s making it harder for us to discern truth from falsehood. It’s causing people to become divorced from their own humanity in weirder and weirder ways.

It’s getting harder and harder to know what’s real on the internet. That photo could be fake. That video could be fake. That song could have been made without any actual artist behind it. That essay could have been written by a chatbot. That social media account you’re interacting with could be a chatbot themselves. This is going to have a massively alienating effect on networking technologies whose initial promise was to help bring us all together.

When the internet first showed up people rejoiced at their ability to connect with others around the world who had the same interests and passions, saying “At long last, I’m not alone!” When AI showed up people started logging on to the internet and wondering, “Uhh… am I alone?”

Because you can’t be sure there’s anyone in there.

It reminds me of a passage from Charlotte Joko Beck’s “Everyday Zen”:

“Suppose we are out on a lake and it’s a bit foggy — not too foggy, but a bit foggy — and we’re rowing along in our little boat having a good time. And then, all of a sudden, coming out of the fog, there’s this other rowboat and it’s heading right at us. And…crash! Well, for a second we’re really angry — what is that fool doing? I just painted my boat! And here he comes — crash! — right into it. And then suddenly we notice that the rowboat is empty. What happens to our anger? Well, the anger collapses…I’ll just have to paint my boat again, that’s all. But if that rowboat that hit ours had another person in it, how would we react? You know what would happen!”

Beck is touching on the Buddhist doctrine of no-self here, which is a discussion for another day, but this parable has so many layers that say so much about humanity and human connection. The only reason we put so much mental energy and attention into our day-to-day interactions and relationships is because we assume we’re relating to other human beings like ourselves. We assume there’s somebody in the other rowboat.

Nearly all of the love, lust, anger, hatred, shame, guilt, passion, enthusiasm, attraction, aversion, delight and disgust we feel from moment to moment throughout this human adventure has to do with other humans. We don’t experience those big feelings toward inanimate objects like rowboats, cars or shopping carts, because we know there’s nobody in them. There’s no real connection to be had with them. Our big feelings come from our meetings with real people, real family, real lovers, real enemies, and real art from real artists.

AI is an empty rowboat, and the more it takes over the internet, the emptier it’s going to feel. People won’t feel like they can find the connection they’re craving in any of the areas that are dominated by artificial intelligence, and they’re going to go looking for it elsewhere. Maybe they’ll start going looking for it in places where there are physical people in physical bodies they can touch and make eye contact with, who they know for a fact are real people with real feelings and hopes and dreams like themselves.

And maybe that would be a good thing. Humanity is becoming too disconnected and dissociated as it is. We could all benefit from digging our roots into reality a bit deeper.

There are some technological developments where as an individual you have to draw a line for yourself. Modern civilization has made it possible to work from home and eat ten thousand calories a day without ever exercising or leaving your apartment, but most of us have the good sense not to do this because we know it would be very bad for our health. We’re going to have to start looking at AI the same way we look at McDonald’s: sure it’s there, but that doesn’t mean you have to consume it, because it’s really not good for you.

November 10, 2025 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »