Kategori: Nyheter

The UK aims to be the first country in the world to create new offences related to AI-generated sexual abuse. New laws will make it illegal to possess, create or distribute AI tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material (CSAM), punishable by up to five years in prison. The laws will also make it illegal for anyone to possess so-called “paedophile manuals” which teach people how to use AI to sexually abuse children.

In the last few decades, the threat against children from online abuse has multiplied at a concerning rate. According to the Internet Watch Foundation, which tracks down and removes abuse from the internet, there has been an 830% rise in online child sexual abuse imagery since 2014. The prevalence of AI image generation tools is fuelling this further.

Last year, we at the International Policing and Protection Research Institute at Anglia Ruskin University published a report on the growing demand for AI-generated child sexual abuse material online.

Researchers analysed chats that took place in dark web forums over the previous 12 months. We found evidence of growing interest in this technology, and of online offenders’ desire for others to learn more and create abuse images.

Horrifyingly, forum members referred to those creating the AI-imagery as “artists”. This technology is creating a new world of opportunity for offenders to create and share the most depraved forms of child abuse content.

Our analysis showed that members of these forums are using non-AI-generated images and videos already at their disposal to facilitate their learning and train the software they use to create the images. Many expressed their hopes and expectations that the technology would evolve, making it even easier for them to create this material.

Dark web spaces are hidden and only accessible through specialised software. They provide offenders with anonymity and privacy, making it difficult for law enforcement to identify and prosecute them.

The Internet Watch Foundation has documented concerning statistics about the rapid increase in the number of AI-generated images they encounter as part of their work. The volume remains relatively low in comparison to the scale of non-AI images that are being found, but the numbers are growing at an alarming rate.

The charity reported in October 2023 that a total of 20,254 AI generated imaged were uploaded in a month to one dark web forum. Before this report was published, little was known about the threat.

The harms of AI abuse

The perception among offenders is that AI-generated child sexual abuse imagery is a victimless crime, because the images are not “real”. But it is far from harmless, firstly because it can be created from real photos of children, including images that are completely innocent.

While there is a lot we don’t yet know about the impact of AI-generated abuse specifically, there is a wealth of research on the harms of online child sexual abuse, as well as how technology is used to perpetuate or worsen the impact of offline abuse. For example, victims may have continuing trauma due to the permanence of photos or videos, just knowing the images are out there. Offenders may also use images (real or fake) to intimidate or blackmail victims.

These considerations are also part of ongoing discussions about deepfake pornography, the creation of which the government also plans to criminalise.

Read more:
Deepfake porn: why we need to make it a crime to create it, not just share it

All of these issues can be exacerbated with AI technology. Additionally, there is also likely to be a traumatic impact on moderators and investigators having to view abuse images in the finest details to identify if they are “real” or “generated” images.

What can the law do?

UK law currently outlaws the taking, making, distribution and possession of an indecent image or a pseudo-photograph (a digitally-created photorealistic image) of a child.

But there are currently no laws that make it an offence to possess the technology to create AI child sexual abuse images. The new laws should ensure that police officers will be able to target abusers who are using or considering using AI to generate this content, even if they are not currently in possession of images when investigated.

New laws on AI tools should help investigators crack down on offenders even if they do not have images in their possession.
Pla2na/Shutterstock

We will always be behind offenders when it comes to technology, and law enforcement agencies around the world will soon be overwhelmed. They need laws designed to help them identify and prosecute those seeking to exploit children and young people online.

It is welcome news that the government is committed to taking action, but it has to be fast. The longer the legislation takes to enact, the more children are at risk of being abused.

Tackling the global threat will also take more than laws in one country. We need a whole-system response that starts when new technology is being designed. Many AI products and tools have been developed for entirely genuine, honest and non-harmful reasons, but they can easily be adapted and used by offenders looking to create harmful or illegal material.

The law needs to understand and respond to this, so that technology cannot be used to facilitate abuse, and so that we can differentiate between those using tech to harm, and those using it for good. Läs mer…

Thutmose II was the fourth ruler of the illustrious ancient Egyptian 18th dynasty, which included Tutankhamun. Now, the location of his long-lost tomb, one of the last missing royal tombs, has been confirmed by the New Kingdom Research Foundation, a British-Egyptian archaeological team led by Piers Litherland. It’s the first pharaoh’s tomb to be discovered in Luxor for over a century.

Thutmose II had a relatively short and uneventful reign, but his enduring legacy is his family. He was husband and half-brother of the female pharaoh Hatshepsut, and father of Thutmose III, arguably ancient Egypt’s greatest military leader.

Thutmose was himself of royal blood as a biological son of Thutmose I. But as his mother was only a minor wife, his marriage to Hatshepsut (also a daughter of Thutmose I, by his principal wife Ahmose) cemented his position in line to the throne.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Around 500 years after Thutmose II’s death, ancient Egyptian officials of the 21st dynasty realised that his tomb (and that of other royals from the New Kingdom) had become vulnerable to damage from flooding and the attentions of tomb robbers. They chose a secret place in the Theban cliffs to relocate the royal remains to.

The mummified bodies of kings, queens and other significant people were interred in their new resting place near Hatshepsut’s temple. The entrance was well disguised by sand and rocks, and was inaccessible by foot. There they lay there until the late 19th century.

Read more:
The scent of the ancient Egyptian afterlife has been recreated – here’s what it smelled like

When the area became known to Egyptologists in 1881, the cache was found to contain the bodies of, among others, Ramesses II, Seti I, Thutmose III and, of course, Thutmose II.

They were moved from the Egyptian Museum in Tahrir Square, Cairo, in a spectacular, globally broadcast parade to the newly opened National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in 2021. But the search for Thutmose II’s original tomb continued.

Stone block relief showing Thutmose II, found at Karnak Temple in Luxor.
WikiCommons, CC BY

This tomb, designated C4, is located in a relatively inaccessible position. It is next to the magnificent mortuary temple of Hatshepsut, Thutmose’s principal wife and later pharaoh in her own right, at the site of Deir el-Bahri on the west bank of the Nile at Luxor.

Discovered in 2022, the site is some 1.2 miles away from the Valley of the Kings, where tombs for Thutmose I and III and Hatshepsut were planned. Women of the royal family had been found there, so the initial theory was that this newly found tomb belonged to one of Thutmose’s lesser wives.

The tomb was also blocked by flood debris. The excavation team had to work through a deep entrance staircase, collapsed ceilings, corridors filled with flooding debris, and tonnes of limestone fragments.

What was in the tomb?

Further exploration by the excavation team has now brought to light evidence that confirms the tomb is that of Thutmose II himself.

Initial observations showed that the form of the entrance bore a strong resemblance to that of Hatshepsut’s KV20 tomb in the Valley of the Kings. It features a wide staircase, doorway and descending corridor, and therefore a significant space lay beyond.

Interior of the tomb of Thutmose II before it was cleared.
Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities of Egypt

As the ceilings and walls were cleared, beautiful decoration of a starred sky and extracts from a funerary text known as the Amduat emerged, strongly suggesting that this was a king’s burial. Sifting through the limestone fragments revealed broken alabaster vessels bearing the king’s name and – crucially – that of Hatshepsut, reducing the list of potential candidates to just one.

Even though C4 has otherwise been emptied of funerary goods such as sarcophagi, this is actually good news. It indicates that the tomb contents were moved elsewhere, perhaps due to the flooding. These items were not found with Thutmose II’s relocated body, so the search is still on to find them.

Hatshepsut’s original tomb has not yet been found.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, CC BY-SA

Contrary to many reports, C4 is not the first royal tomb to be found since that of Tutankhamun in 1922 by Howard Carter. Pierre Montet’s excavations at the third intermediate period (1069–664BC) capital city of Tanis in the 1930s revealed the royal necropolis of the 21st and 22nd dynasties, with some undisturbed. However, C4 is the first since Tutankhamun in Luxor, and it is the last missing king’s tomb of the 18th dynasty.

Still up for discovery are a handful of tombs belonging to other rulers of Egypt: Nefertiti; Ramesses XIII; the 21st-dynasty high priest of Amun, Herihor; Cleopatra VII; and Alexander the Great. Other significant tombs which may yet come to light are Ankhesenamun, wife of Tutankhamun, and the great architect Imhotep.

Some of these tombs may never be found. But the New Kingdom Research Foundation are now looking to find the next stage in Thutmose II’s postmortem journey – where was he taken after C4, but before the royal cache in the Theban cliffs? Läs mer…

 When Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs during his first term as US president, it sparked a trade war with China. As the Trump administration ratchets up its threat to tax imports from its allies and economic rivals alike, the world is bracing for another wave of costly economic disruption.

This protectionist shift is all the more remarkable given how the US championed trade liberalisation for decades.

So what does it actually take for a country to use protectionism to grow its economy? Some developing countries have successfully used tariffs to do so, while others have struggled. In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we talk to Jostein Hauge, a development economist at the University of Cambridge, about who wins and who loses from tariffs and protectionism.

The main argument against taxing imports through tariffs is that the higher costs of imported goods will be passed onto consumers. The main argument in favour is that tariffs can help to protect a country’s domestic economy, explains Hauge:

 By using tariffs, you can, if they are used effectively, and if they’re successful, help domestic firms become better at producing what they’re producing and eventually become competitive in the world economy. Sometimes that’s successful, other times that’s not successful. It can also be an effective way of raising taxes, especially for countries that don’t have a lot of tax revenue, especially developing countries.

A number of developing countries successfully used tariffs and other forms of protectionism to grow their economies in the 1950s and 1960s, as Hauge explains:

South Korea gradually went from being a low-income, low-tech economy towards becoming extremely important players in global industries like electronics, automotive and steel.

The US has also used tariffs throughout its history, with varying degrees of success. It was the most protectionist country in the world in the 1800s, using tariffs to grow its economy. But the Smoot-Hawley Act in 1930, which introduced a range of taxes on imports to the US, actually contributed to worsening the Great Depression.

From the 1970s, however, the US aggressively pushed for trade liberalisation and backed the creation of the World Trade Organization in the 1990s. That’s why Hauge says the current return to US protectionism, which began during the first Trump administration and continued under Biden, “reeks of hypocrisy”.

 When rich countries were ahead in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, it made sense for them to preach the virtues of free trade to the rest of the world.  That is also why we’re seeing this protectionist turn right now, especially in the United States, but also to some degree in Europe, because now certain countries are starting to become competitive once again. In particular, China is now challenging the economic power of the United States, especially within a lot of manufactured goods, so the United States is now turning away from this doctrine of free trade, saying actually protectionism is useful.

Listen to the conversation with Jostein Hauge on The Conversation Weekly podcast, which also includes an introduction from Tracy Walsh, economy and business editor at The Conversation US.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany with assistance from Katie Flood and Gemma Ware, Sound design was by Michelle Macklem, and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Clips in this episode from CNN, Bloomberg Television, BBC News, CBS News and NBC News.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. Läs mer…

Last weekend’s events will have left many with the dizzying sensation of watching historic events unfold before their eyes. The content of the speeches delivered by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance – at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels and at the Munich Security Conference, respectively – was not wholly unexpected, but their delivery was destructive. Both offered nothing short of a blistering attack on their European partners and allies.

The on-the-ground consequences of these speeches remain to be seen in full, but they may well alter the course of history. Whatever comes to pass, it is already undeniably clear that transatlantic relations have taken a massive hit.

The United States is, it seems, no longer willing to unconditionally cover Europe’s back, and the security guarantee it has extended to the continent since 1945 will now depend on allies meeting Washington’s demands. The relationship is quickly evolving into an asymmetrical one, in which everything has a price.

Read more:
Censorship, abortion and the ’threat within’: what a free speech expert thinks of J.D. Vance’s remarks to Europe

EU: declining and ineffective?

Vance and Hegseth’s speeches lay bare a number of hard truths. They demonstrate how little respect the US is prepared to show its European partners, whom it regards as declining and ineffective, and they showcase President Trump’s realist and transactional view of foreign relations (while glossing over the fact that the US’ presence in Europe serves its own geostrategic interests above all else).

They also expose the stark reality that Europe is as good as defenceless in the face of the threats looming over it, and that, if it fails to react, it is condemned to irrelevance, if it is not already there.

A hastily organised European summit held two days later in Paris – with its litany of complaints from those not invited and disagreements over Europe’s role in such a crucial moment – has only made matters worse.

Read more:
Europe left scrambling in face of wavering US security guarantees

The EU: a military minnow

Many will argue that Europe is reaping today what it has sown. For decades the bloc has ignored demands to build its defence capabilities, opting instead to become a military minnow, meaning President Trump can now decide to settle the future of Ukraine bilaterally with Russia, without taking the wishes of either Ukraine or Europe into account.

This view is not completely wrong, but it is unfair. Despite considerable political headwinds, Europe has given substantial financial and material assistance to Ukraine. The continent has also made a major effort – from which the United States has benefited – to reduce its dependence on Russian energy resources.

Moreover, Europe has a direct stake in the conflict since it lives side by side with Russia, while the US has the Atlantic Ocean for a buffer zone.

A peacekeeping force in Ukraine?

Negotiations are only just beginning, and little is clear, but the idea of deploying a multinational European peacekeeping force to Ukraine seems to be emerging as one of Trump’s possible demands.

If Russia were to eventually agree to such a deployment, Europeans would probably accept the decision so as not to further alienate the United States. It would, however, require clarification of crucial issues, such as the need for a resolution from the UN Security Council (where the UK and France have a veto), a clear outline of the force’s mission, the conditions for the use of force, and the desired end-state for its withdrawal.

The force would also need to have a robust command and control system, and essential resources such as communications, intelligence and air defence. Lastly, it would need to have a strong reserve and credible support from other sources to deter Russia from attacking, provoking, or otherwise engaging forces deployed in Ukraine. All of this, at present, means that US involvement must be kept to a minimum.

Read more:
Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

The worst-case scenario

Accepting deployment without first addressing these concerns will entail significant risk. What happens if, for example, Russia attacks a NATO member?

To participate or not would be a sovereign decision for each European country. For the sake of their own security, European nations should also continue to demand a voice in the decisions that so seriously affect them.

Trump’s arrival has opened a turbulent chapter that could, theoretically, close with a return to normality when his term ends. However, Europe has to prepare for the worst-case scenario, in which transatlantic relations are damaged beyond repair.

If this is the case, Europe will have little choice but to make a virtue of necessity by moving towards real strategic autonomy. This can only be done by working hand in hand with NATO, an organisation which, against the odds, remains vital for the continent’s security. Läs mer…

Treasurer Jim Chalmers will not be organising a bucks’ night ahead of the coming nuptials of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Jodie Haydon.

How do we know this morsel of trivia? The treasurer, appearing on Wednesday breakfast TV to talk up Tuesday’s interest rate cut, was asked about being in charge of arranging the PM’s bucks’ party.

“I’m more of a cup of tea and an early night kind of guy these days. And so I’m sure you can find someone more appropriate to plan the bucks,” Chalmers said, laughing off whatever impatience he may have felt at being taken down this path.

To the dismay of more than a few in Labor circles, a Women’s Weekly interview with the PM and his fiancee dropped into the news cycle just as the government needed all attention on the rate cut.

Given the army of prime ministerial spinners, there was some wonder at this publicity collision.

All leaders do these soft photogenic sessions. But, leaving aside the unfortunate clash, it might be argued this is not the time for the prime ministerial couple to be inviting attention to their post-election marriage. Albanese is not thinking of retiring, but some voters might see a subtle hint of that. As they did when he bought his clifftop house on the central NSW coast.

Chalmers, when asked about the Women’s Weekly piece, was anxious to get across the message that, wedding or not, “I can assure all of your viewers, whether it’s the prime minister or the rest of his government, the main focus is on the cost of living”.

More disappointing for the government than the Women’s Weekly blip was the mixed reception the long-anticipated rate cut received in much of the media.

Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock indicated the bank’s decision to cut was a close call. She hosed down expectations of further cuts, which effectively rules out a pre-election move on April Fools’ Day.

It wasn’t an entirely happy week for Bullock, with critics of the cut suggesting she had responded to political pressure. Out in mortgage land, people will be relieved at the slight help, but it only takes away a fraction of their repayment pain.

Meanwhile the work of the cabinet expenditure review committee and the treasury continues apace on what could be a “ghost” March 25 budget – if Albanese aborts it with an April election.

The government insists there is nothing strange about this. If the budget doesn’t eventuate, the measures will be rolled out as election policy, it says. The argument is unconvincing. Preparing a budget and putting together election policy may have some things in common, but they are not the same. A budget is a close-woven tapestry; election policy is open-stitch cloth.

The uncertainty about the election date, while full campaigning is underway, is disruptive for business and the economy (even if, as Chalmers says, it’s now only a matter of weeks either way). It reinforces the argument for fixed federal terms, which work well in the states. But the obstacles are such that that’s not even worth talking about, unfortunately.

In a “no show without Punch” moment this week, Clive Palmer entered the election race with his Trumpet of Patriots party and a promise to spend “whatever is required to be spent”. There’s talk of $90 million being splashed on a “Make Australia Great Again” platform.

It’s hard to get a fix on what impact Palmer will have. He’s competing with Pauline Hanson for votes on the right. Labor fears his advertising on the cost of living will crowd out its messages. He is also targeting Opposition Leader Peter Dutton for not being Trumpian enough. He told Nine media, “As Dutton said, he’s no Donald Trump. I say, what’s wrong with being Donald Trump?”

The answer is, a very great deal. As Trump’s presidency unfolds, its dangers are becoming more obvious than even his harshest critics feared.

Inevitably, the shadow of Trump is hanging increasingly over our election.

With Trump’s win, the Liberals would have thought the latest manifestation of a widespread international swing to the right would put wind in their sails. But the counter-argument has grown – an erratic and autocratic Trump is making some Australian voters feel more unsettled and inclined to stick with the status quo.

Dutton is not a mini-me Trump but shares some of his views on issues such as government spending, bureaucracy and identity politics. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison told the Australian Financial Review this week that Dutton would sympathise with some of Trump’s objectives but the opposition leader was “not trying to ape” what was going on in the United States.

Trump’s push to end the Russia-Ukraine war has taken Trumpism to a fresh, alarming level, and could inject strains into the Australia-US relationship.

Trump has sidelined Ukraine and is clearly favouring Russia in pursuing a settlement. Now he has launched an extraordinary personal attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

On his social media platform Trump lashed Zelensky as a “modestly successful comedian” who had gone “into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start”. Zelensky was a “dictator” who refused to have elections, had done “a terrible job” and was very low in the opinion polls, Trump said.

Ukraine’s cause has been bipartisan in Australia, which has given the country more than $1.5 billion in assistance and now has (belatedly) reopened its embassy there.

To his credit, Dutton immediately condemned Trump’s stand in very forthright terms.

“President Trump has got it wrong in relation to some of the public commentary that I’ve seen him make in relation to President Zelensky and the situation in Ukraine,” he told Sydney radio.

“I think very, very careful thought needs to be given about the steps because if we make Europe less safe, or we provide some sort of support to [Russian president] Putin, deliberately or inadvertently, that is a terrible, terrible outcome.”

Albanese’s initial response was to repeat firmly Australia backing for Ukraine, condemning Russia. He did not comment directly on Trump’s attack. He repeated he was not going to give “ongoing commentary on everything that Donald Trump says”.

The government finds itself caught between the need to strongly reject Trump’s handling of Ukraine, and a desire to tread softly with an administration from whom it desperately wants to win a concession on tariffs. Läs mer…

Truth, the new play from writer-director pair Patricia Cornelius and Susie Dee, dives headfirst into the contentious world of Julian Assange. It offers us a nuanced portrait of the WikiLeaks founder who transformed from hacker wunderkind to global lightning rod.

An apt celebration of the significant body of work from the acclaimed duo, Truth opens nearly 40 years after the pair created and performed their first collaboration, Lilly and May.

Assange rose to global prominence by publishing classified documents that exposed government secrets and surveillance programs. He became both a celebrated whistleblower and a controversial figure in debates about transparency and national security.

Truth unravels the threads of his story.

Truth reveals the complex legacy of a man whose actions have both championed and challenged modern democracy.
Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre

A complex legacy

The work is set in a spare, black-box space, characterised by Matilda Woodroofe’s bureaucratic brutalist design.

A backdrop of hard mesh enclosures and scaffolded structures evokes a monotonous line of outdoor exercise yards or prison cells. This is flanked by colourless filing cabinets, 80s-style laminated brown desks and office chairs on wheels. A giant LED screen crowns the structure.

The ensemble (Emily Havea, Tomàš Kantor, James O’Connell, Eva Rees and Eva Seymour) weaves together key moments in Assange’s life, revealing the complex legacy of a man whose actions have both championed and challenged modern democracy.

Speaking in chorus at times, the actors perform multiple versions of Assange and other characters. They are journalists, whistleblowers, narrators, and include the key figures of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.

A terrific and youthful ensemble cast delivers sensitive and energised performances.
Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre

Characterised by Cornelius’ trademark rapid-fire dialogue, the text is tightly calibrated with smart, sparse, dry comments that, at times, comically undercut our Australian sensibilities. As one character says, “the worst thing to be in this country is too smart”.

The ensemble is physically dynamic and vocally strong. They have a particular choreographic fluidity. A spaciousness and attention to timing allows each performance to land. This is a testament both to Dee’s sharp, contained direction, and a terrific and youthful ensemble cast who deliver sensitive and energised performances.

From geek to advocate

The play moves chronologically through Assange’s life. We begin with the rocky early years marked by the dissonance between his sharp intelligence and reputation as computer nerd. We witness his arrests for hacking. We follow his evolution from awkward geek to outspoken advocate for free speech.

The play offers us a nuanced portrait of the WikiLeaks founder who transformed from hacker wunderkind to global lightning rod.
Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre

The play is grounded in comprehensive research, and solo moments featuring Snowden and Manning serve as poignant interludes to the fast-paced narrative of Assange’s life events.

I am struck by the way the work unsettles my preconceptions. The small, stark image of a naked Private Manning in her isolated cell is particularly raw and affecting – but is juxtaposed on stage against Assange’s dubious behaviour towards two young women in Sweden.

The show clips along, all the while unfolding a nuanced consideration of the complexities of reported narratives and the myriad ways in which journalistic narratives are influenced – and controlled.

The delivery to the audience is largely direct-address. This risks becoming tedious, but Cornelius’ intelligent style and the ensemble’s strong performance carries through.

The LED screen is used to great effect. The video design (Meri Blazevski) shifts through rainstorms of binary digits, to list of early Assange manifestos or leaked stories, to pixellated images of actors’ faces as teenage gamers.

The work is set in a spare, black-box space, characterised by Matilda Woodroofe’s bureaucratic brutalist design.
Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre

In a long and shocking sequence, we witness drone footage from the Afghanistan war logs accompanied by the chillingly dispassionate commentary of the operators.

Often, the screen becomes a surface for live video feeds which work to personalise or disembody characters, functioning variously as narrator, witness, and surveillance device. Transitions between closeups, documentation and stark data both drive and complicate the storytelling.

Kelly Ryall’s composition and sound design – often paired with the pulsing or flashing giant texts on the screen – is a retro-electronic tapestry of victory chimes, synthetic bleeps and Pac Man pings. It is all underscored by deep digital tones and rapid analogue tapping of keyboards.

A long artistic relationship

This is an intelligent and thoughtful show that manages to be both complex and entertaining. The play is particularly salient given current global events, challenging us to consider the scale of what we’re up against, how long we should remain silent, and what power – if any – we have to effect change.

In an era of heated debate about transparency and fake news, Truth emerges as a vital and edgy work in the capable hands of two highly respected theatre makers.

The work is testament to the longevity of an artistic relationship between two older women that carries decades of embodied knowledge.

Despite the persistent ageism in Australian theatre that often equates “urgency” exclusively with youth, this work reminds us older artists can and do challenge and disrupt – and bring a special and necessary currency to our cultural life.

Truth is at Malthouse Theatre, Melbourne, until March 8. Läs mer…

Today, Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles began negotiations with his Papua New Guinean counterpart, Billy Joseph, on a defence treaty. This builds on the bilateral security agreement signed between the countries in 2023.

Analysts have been quick to link the new defence treaty with Australia’s anxiety about China’s increasingly visible presence in the Pacific region.

This reflects Australia’s longstanding anxiety about powers with potentially hostile interests establishing a foothold here.

Because it’s only three kilometres from Australian territory, PNG has always been a particular concern. TB Millar, one of the architects of modern Australian strategic policy, went so far as to observe in 1965 that:

if the whole island [of Papua New Guinea] were to sink under the sea, the net result for Australia in terms of military strategy would be a gain. It is an exposed and vulnerable front door.

So, the possibility of a defence treaty seems like a “win” for an Australian government keen to bolster its security credentials in the frantic months before the federal election.

But the government needs to have good answers to four questions before it signs on the dotted line.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Papua New Guinea Defence Minister Billy Joseph at Gallipoli Barracks in Brisbane.
Jono Searle/AAP

1. How will Australia enforce the treaty?

Although treaties are theoretically legally binding, there are very few practical enforcement mechanisms.

The constant agonising in Australia about whether the United States will meet its obligations under the Australia, New Zealand and United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) exemplifies this.

The Trump administration’s actions also illustrate how quickly a change of government can switch foreign and strategic policy directions, including obligations under longstanding treaties. Like ANZUS, the risk of unenforceability of the PNG treaty is higher for Australia. Australia’s anxieties about China mean that it needs the treaty more than PNG does.

Sanctions are the most likely way Australia could try to enforce the treaty if, say, PNG breached it by striking a security deal with China. But sanctions can be ineffective.

Alternatively, Australia could threaten to withdraw its support if PNG breached the treaty. But this is also unlikely because Australia knows China is likely to step into any gap.

This has been demonstrated in Solomon Islands. Even though Australia has a security treaty with Solomon Islands and invested A$3 billion in the 2003–17 Regional Assistance Mission, Solomon Islands still signed a security agreement with China in 2022.

2. Has Australia mitigated any risks?

No previous Australian government has offered PNG a binding security guarantee.

In 1977, Australia and PNG adopted a formal defence relationship. Australia, however, was cautious about instability in PNG and the risk of being drawn into a conflict along its land border with Indonesia. As such, it didn’t provide a commitment to defend PNG.

In the mid-1980s, PNG requested a defence commitment from Australia. Again, Australia was reluctant. As then-Defence Minister Kim Beazley recalled, PNG was “right in the frame of our relationship with Indonesia”, due to the shared border with Indonesia and the challenge of West Papuan independence activists crossing it.

As a compromise, the two countries made a Joint Declaration of Principles in 1987 that only provided the two governments “will consult … about matters affecting their common security interests”.

As the self-determination struggle in West Papua continues, PNG currently has defence units posted on its border with Indonesia.

Under what circumstances, if any, would Australia provide military support to PNG if violence on the border worsened? And what impact would this have on our relationship with Indonesia?

Protesters march during a violent protest in Jayapura, the capital of Indonesia’s Papua province, in 2019.
EPA

Not responding to a call for support from PNG could damage Australia’s reputation in the region. But if Australia did become involved in a conflict, it may be criticised for supporting activities that breach human rights.

The risk of Australia being unable to respond to a PNG request for military assistance is high because Australia does not have the defence (or policing) capacity to defend or stabilise a sprawling country like PNG.

Australia’s reliance on US assistance to stabilise Timor-Leste after its 1999 independence referendum illustrates the logistical challenges it faces when making large deployments, even in the region.

While Australia’s defence capabilities have improved since then, it would still likely only have the capacity to secure key cities in PNG and evacuate Australian citizens if there was serious unrest.

3. Can Australia justify the cost at home?

Australian taxpayers – already experiencing cost-of-living pressures – need to be told what funding commitments the government is willing to make to facilitate the treaty negotiations.

Australia’s promise of A$600 million to fund a PNG team in the National Rugby League is already attracting opposition at home.

4. What are the long-term defence plans?

PNG’s strategic location means Australia and the US have long had designs on establishing a permanent military base there.

Manus Island, for example, has been identified as an ideal submarine base. With Australia developing nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership, are there plans to eventually base – or at least resupply – Australian submarines there?

This could have an impact on Australia’s relationships in the broader Pacific Islands region. There are already concerns in the region about whether the nuclear-powered submarines will comply with Australia’s obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.

Australia has legitimate strategic interests in PNG. As such, it’s understandable why a defence treaty is tempting.

But for 50 years, Australian governments have resisted this temptation because they decided that the risks outweighed the rewards. The current government will need to provide a good justification for its change of course. Läs mer…

Today, Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles began negotiations with his Papua New Guinean counterpart, Billy Joseph, on a defence treaty. This builds on the bilateral security agreement signed between the countries in 2023.

Analysts have been quick to link the new defence treaty with Australia’s anxiety about China’s increasingly visible presence in the Pacific region.

This reflects Australia’s longstanding anxiety about powers with potentially hostile interests establishing a foothold here.

Because it’s only three kilometres from Australian territory, PNG has always been a particular concern. TB Millar, one of the architects of modern Australian strategic policy, went so far as to observe in 1965 that:

if the whole island [of Papua New Guinea] were to sink under the sea, the net result for Australia in terms of military strategy would be a gain. It is an exposed and vulnerable front door.

So, the possibility of a defence treaty seems like a “win” for an Australian government keen to bolster its security credentials in the frantic months before the federal election.

But the government needs to have good answers to four questions before it signs on the dotted line.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Papua New Guinea Defence Minister Billy Joseph at Gallipoli Barracks in Brisbane.
Jono Searle/AAP

1. How will Australia enforce the treaty?

Although treaties are theoretically legally binding, there are very few practical enforcement mechanisms.

The constant agonising in Australia about whether the United States will meet its obligations under the Australia, New Zealand and United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) exemplifies this.

The Trump administration’s actions also illustrate how quickly a change of government can switch foreign and strategic policy directions, including obligations under longstanding treaties. Like ANZUS, the risk of unenforceability of the PNG treaty is higher for Australia. Australia’s anxieties about China mean that it needs the treaty more than PNG does.

Sanctions are the most likely way Australia could try to enforce the treaty if, say, PNG breached it by striking a security deal with China. But sanctions can be ineffective.

Alternatively, Australia could threaten to withdraw its support if PNG breached the treaty. But this is also unlikely because Australia knows China is likely to step into any gap.

This has been demonstrated in Solomon Islands. Even though Australia has a security treaty with Solomon Islands and invested A$3 billion in the 2003–17 Regional Assistance Mission, Solomon Islands still signed a security agreement with China in 2022.

2. Has Australia mitigated any risks?

No previous Australian government has offered PNG a binding security guarantee.

In 1977, Australia and PNG adopted a formal defence relationship. Australia, however, was cautious about instability in PNG and the risk of being drawn into a conflict along its land border with Indonesia. As such, it didn’t provide a commitment to defend PNG.

In the mid-1980s, PNG requested a defence commitment from Australia. Again, Australia was reluctant. As then-Defence Minister Kim Beazley recalled, PNG was “right in the frame of our relationship with Indonesia”, due to the shared border with Indonesia and the challenge of West Papuan independence activists crossing it.

As a compromise, the two countries made a Joint Declaration of Principles in 1987 that only provided the two governments “will consult … about matters affecting their common security interests”.

As the self-determination struggle in West Papua continues, PNG currently has defence units posted on its border with Indonesia.

Under what circumstances, if any, would Australia provide military support to PNG if violence on the border worsened? And what impact would this have on our relationship with Indonesia?

Protesters march during a violent protest in Jayapura, the capital of Indonesia’s Papua province, in 2019.
EPA

Not responding to a call for support from PNG could damage Australia’s reputation in the region. But if Australia did become involved in a conflict, it may be criticised for supporting activities that breach human rights.

The risk of Australia being unable to respond to a PNG request for military assistance is high because Australia does not have the defence (or policing) capacity to defend or stabilise a sprawling country like PNG.

Australia’s reliance on US assistance to stabilise Timor-Leste after its 1999 independence referendum illustrates the logistical challenges it faces when making large deployments, even in the region.

While Australia’s defence capabilities have improved since then, it would still likely only have the capacity to secure key cities in PNG and evacuate Australian citizens if there was serious unrest.

3. Can Australia justify the cost at home?

Australian taxpayers – already experiencing cost-of-living pressures – need to be told what funding commitments the government is willing to make to facilitate the treaty negotiations.

Australia’s promise of A$600 million to fund a PNG team in the National Rugby League is already attracting opposition at home.

4. What are the long-term defence plans?

PNG’s strategic location means Australia and the US have long had designs on establishing a permanent military base there.

Manus Island, for example, has been identified as an ideal submarine base. With Australia developing nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership, are there plans to eventually base – or at least resupply – Australian submarines there?

This could have an impact on Australia’s relationships in the broader Pacific Islands region. There are already concerns in the region about whether the nuclear-powered submarines will comply with Australia’s obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.

Australia has legitimate strategic interests in PNG. As such, it’s understandable why a defence treaty is tempting.

But for 50 years, Australian governments have resisted this temptation because they decided that the risks outweighed the rewards. The current government will need to provide a good justification for its change of course. Läs mer…

Researchers at Microsoft have announced the creation of the first “topological qubits” in a device that stores information in an exotic state of matter, in what may be a significant breakthrough for quantum computing.

At the same time, the researchers also published a paper in Nature and a “roadmap” for further work. The design of the Majorana 1 processor is supposed to fit up to a million qubits, which may be enough to realise many significant goals of quantum computing – such as cracking cryptographic codes and designing new drugs and materials faster.

If Microsoft’s claims pan out, the company may have leapfrogged competitors such as IBM and Google, who currently appear to be leading the race to build a quantum computer.

However, the peer-reviewed Nature paper only shows part of what the researchers have claimed, and the roadmap still includes many hurdles to be overcome. While the Microsoft press release shows off something that is supposed to be quantum computing hardware, we don’t have any independent confirmation of what it can do. Nevertheless, the news from Microsoft is very promising.

By now you probably have some questions. What’s a topological qubit? What’s a qubit at all, for that matter? And why do people want quantum computers in the first place?

Quantum bits are hard to build

Quantum computers were first dreamed up in the 1980s. Where an ordinary computer stores information in bits, a quantum computer stores information in quantum bits – or qubits.

An ordinary bit can have a value of 0 or 1, but a quantum bit (thanks to the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern very small particles) can have a combination of both. If you imagine an ordinary bit as an arrow that can point either up or down, a qubit is an arrow that can point in any direction (or what is called a “superposition” of up and down).

This means a quantum computer would be much faster than an ordinary computer for certain kinds of calculations – particularly some to do with unpicking codes and simulating natural systems.

So far, so good. But it turns out that building real qubits and getting information in and out of them is extremely difficult, because interactions with the outside world can destroy the delicate quantum states inside.

Researchers have tried a lot of different technologies to make qubits, using things like atoms trapped in electric fields or eddies of current swirling in superconductors.

Tiny wires and exotic particles

Microsoft has taken a very different approach to build its “topological qubits”. They have used what are called Majorana particles, first theorised in 1937 by Italian physicist Ettore Majorana.

Majoranas are not naturally occurring particles like electrons or protons. Instead, they only exist inside a rare kind of material called a topological superconductor (which requires advanced material design and must be cooled down to extremely low temperatures).

Indeed, Majorana particles are so exotic they are usually only studied in universities – not used in practical applications.

The Microsoft team say they have used a pair of tiny wires, each with a Majorana particle trapped at either end, to act as a qubit. They measure the value of the qubit – expressed by means of whether an electron is in one wire or the other – using microwaves.

Braided bits

Why has Microsoft put in all this effort? Because by swapping the positions of Majorana particles (or measuring them in a certain way), they can be “braided” so they can be measured without error and are resistant to outside interference. (This is the “topological” part of “topological qubits”.)

In theory, a quantum computer made using Majorana particles can be completely free of the qubit errors that plague other designs.

This is why Microsoft has chosen such a seemingly laborious approach. Other technologies are more prone to errors, and hundreds of physical qubits may need to be combined together to produce a single reliable “logical qubit”.

Microsoft has instead put its time and resources into developing Majorana-based qubits. While they are late to the big quantum party, they hope they will be able to catch up quickly.

There’s always a catch

As always, if something sounds too good to be true, there is a catch. Even for a Majorana-based quantum computer, such as the one announced by Microsoft, one operation – known as T-gate – won’t be achievable without errors.

So the Majorana-based quantum chip is only “almost error-free”. However, correcting for T-gate errors is much simpler than the general error correction of other quantum platforms.

Microsoft plans to scale up by grouping together more and more qubits.
Microsoft

What now? Microsoft will try to move ahead with its roadmap, steadily building larger and larger collections of qubits.

The scientific community will closely watch how Microsoft’s quantum computing processors operate, and how they perform in comparison to the other already established quantum computing processors.

At the same time, research into the exotic and obscure behaviour of Majorana particles will continue at universities around the globe. Läs mer…

Researchers at Microsoft have announced the creation of the first “topological qubits” in a device that stores information in an exotic state of matter, in what may be a significant breakthrough for quantum computing.

At the same time, the researchers also published a paper in Nature and a “roadmap” for further work. The design of the Majorana 1 processor is supposed to fit up to a million qubits, which may be enough to realise many significant goals of quantum computing – such as cracking cryptographic codes and designing new drugs and materials faster.

If Microsoft’s claims pan out, the company may have leapfrogged competitors such as IBM and Google, who currently appear to be leading the race to build a quantum computer.

However, the peer-reviewed Nature paper only shows part of what the researchers have claimed, and the roadmap still includes many hurdles to be overcome. While the Microsoft press release shows off something that is supposed to be quantum computing hardware, we don’t have any independent confirmation of what it can do. Nevertheless, the news from Microsoft is very promising.

By now you probably have some questions. What’s a topological qubit? What’s a qubit at all, for that matter? And why do people want quantum computers in the first place?

Quantum bits are hard to build

Quantum computers were first dreamed up in the 1980s. Where an ordinary computer stores information in bits, a quantum computer stores information in quantum bits – or qubits.

An ordinary bit can have a value of 0 or 1, but a quantum bit (thanks to the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern very small particles) can have a combination of both. If you imagine an ordinary bit as an arrow that can point either up or down, a qubit is an arrow that can point in any direction (or what is called a “superposition” of up and down).

This means a quantum computer would be much faster than an ordinary computer for certain kinds of calculations – particularly some to do with unpicking codes and simulating natural systems.

So far, so good. But it turns out that building real qubits and getting information in and out of them is extremely difficult, because interactions with the outside world can destroy the delicate quantum states inside.

Researchers have tried a lot of different technologies to make qubits, using things like atoms trapped in electric fields or eddies of current swirling in superconductors.

Tiny wires and exotic particles

Microsoft has taken a very different approach to build its “topological qubits”. They have used what are called Majorana particles, first theorised in 1937 by Italian physicist Ettore Majorana.

Majoranas are not naturally occurring particles like electrons or protons. Instead, they only exist inside a rare kind of material called a topological superconductor (which requires advanced material design and must be cooled down to extremely low temperatures).

Indeed, Majorana particles are so exotic they are usually only studied in universities – not used in practical applications.

The Microsoft team say they have used a pair of tiny wires, each with a Majorana particle trapped at either end, to act as a qubit. They measure the value of the qubit – expressed by means of whether an electron is in one wire or the other – using microwaves.

Braided bits

Why has Microsoft put in all this effort? Because by swapping the positions of Majorana particles (or measuring them in a certain way), they can be “braided” so they can be measured without error and are resistant to outside interference. (This is the “topological” part of “topological qubits”.)

In theory, a quantum computer made using Majorana particles can be completely free of the qubit errors that plague other designs.

This is why Microsoft has chosen such a seemingly laborious approach. Other technologies are more prone to errors, and hundreds of physical qubits may need to be combined together to produce a single reliable “logical qubit”.

Microsoft has instead put its time and resources into developing Majorana-based qubits. While they are late to the big quantum party, they hope they will be able to catch up quickly.

There’s always a catch

As always, if something sounds too good to be true, there is a catch. Even for a Majorana-based quantum computer, such as the one announced by Microsoft, one operation – known as T-gate – won’t be achievable without errors.

So the Majorana-based quantum chip is only “almost error-free”. However, correcting for T-gate errors is much simpler than the general error correction of other quantum platforms.

Microsoft plans to scale up by grouping together more and more qubits.
Microsoft

What now? Microsoft will try to move ahead with its roadmap, steadily building larger and larger collections of qubits.

The scientific community will closely watch how Microsoft’s quantum computing processors operate, and how they perform in comparison to the other already established quantum computing processors.

At the same time, research into the exotic and obscure behaviour of Majorana particles will continue at universities around the globe. Läs mer…