Kategori: Nyheter

Is it possible to bridge America’s stark political divisions?

In the wake of a presidential election that many feared could tear the U.S. apart, this question is on many people’s minds.

A record-high 80% of Americans believe the U.S. is greatly divided on “the most important values”. Ahead of the election, a similar percentage of Americans said they feared violence and threats to democracy. Almost half the country believes people on the other side of the political divide are “downright evil.”

Some say that the vitriolic rhetoric of political leaders and social media influencers is partly to blame for the country’s state of toxic polarization. Others cite social media platforms that amplify misinformation and polarization.

There is, however, reason for hope.

I say this as an anthropologist of peace and conflict. After working abroad, I began doing research on the threat of violence in the U.S. in 2016. In 2021, I published a related book, “It Can Happen Here.”

Now, I am researching polarization in the U.S. – and ways to counter it. I have visited large Make America Great Again events for my research. I have also gone to small workshops run by nonprofit organizations like Urban Rural Action that are dedicated to building social cohesion and bridging America’s divides. Some refer to the growing number of these organizations as a “bridging movement.”

Their work is not easy, but they have shown that connecting with and listening to others who hold different political views is possible.

Here are three strategies these organizations are using – and people can try to use in their own daily lives – to reduce political polarization:

1. Listen first

Pearce Godwin, a former Republican-leaning consultant from North Carolina, was one of the first “bridgers.”

In 2013, Godwin was doing Christian humanitarian work in Africa. Upset by the vitriol of U.S. politics, Godwin, who had worked on Capitol Hill, wrote a commentary, “It’s Time to Listen,” while on an overnight bus trip across Uganda.

Multiple U.S. newspapers published his column, which called for what is the starting point of most bridging work: People should listen first to understand.

Later that year, Godwin started a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization, the Listen First Project, to promote this message through activities like a 2014 “Listen First, Vote Second” public relations and media campaign.

After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Godwin decided to expand Listen First work. He established the #ListenFirst Coalition with three other similar organizations: The Village Square, Living Room Conversations and National Institute for Civil Discourse.

Today, this coalition includes over 500 organizations, whose work ranges from one-off dialogue skills workshops to longer-term projects that seek to build social cohesion in the U.S.

2. Be curious, not dogmatic

Braver Angels dates back to 2016 and is another large nonprofit organization that is part of the #ListenFirst Coalition.

On Election Day on Nov. 5, 2024, Braver Angels organized hundreds of pairs of Trump and Kamala Harris supporters to stand at polling stations and demonstrate that dialogue across the political divide is possible. Some held signs that read “Vote Red, Vote Blue, We’re All Americans Through and Through.”

During the past year, I have observed Braver Angels workshops on media bias, public education, immigration and the 2024 election.

Their fishbowl exercise stands out.

Designed by Bill Doherty, a couples therapist and co-founder of Braver Angels, the fishbowl involves a group of Republicans and Democrats talking.

People in the group take turns speaking on a particular political topic, while the others – along with a larger group of observers – listen to what they say without speaking. After peering into this “fishbowl,” each group member discusses what they discovered by listening to the other group. Many mention their “surprise” at points of agreement on certain issues and the thoughtful reasoning behind positions “on the other side” they had previously dismissed.

The exercise illustrates a key starting point of bridging work: Be curious, instead of trying to prove you are right. Learn how someone on the other side of an issue understands and perceives something.

3. Burst out of your bubble

Another key strategy to overcome division is helping people burst out of their bubble. The idea is that people can objectively detach from and examine their assumptions, and then try to explore alternative views outside their social media, news information and community silos.

One #ListenFirst Coalition partner, AllSides, tries to help people do this through a digital platform that shows how the same news of the day is being reported by left, right and center media organizations. It also has an online tool, “Rate Your Bias,” which helps users become aware of their own assumptions.

People can use these tools to compare different stances on issues like federal taxes and civil liberties – and how their own positions line up. People can also search for individual media outlets to see if the majority of other users have rated these organizations as liberal, conservative or center.

When people identify their own biases – which can become evident as they examine the media outlets they like, for example – it can help them become more curious and open. It also helps them move out of the information silos that divide people.

The bridging movement is not without its challenges. People who lean red are sometimes suspicious of these initiatives, which give people information on voting and democracy and can be perceived as having a liberal bias.

Group diversity is also a challenge. Based on my observations, Braver Angels participants tend to be older, white and educated.

And other groups, like #ListenFirst Coalition partner Urban Rural Action, have to spend considerable time and effort getting a diverse range of people in their programs.

But, given America’s stark political divisions, I think there is a clear need and desire for the depolarization work these groups do.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. are concerned about the current state of polarization in the nation. These bridging groups show a way forward and offer strategies to help Americans build bridges across the country’s deepening political divide. Läs mer…

Companies around the world are increasingly committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions to slow and ultimately reverse climate change.

One indicator is the number of companies that have set emissions targets as part of the Science Based Targets initiative, or SBTi, a global nonprofit organization. That number grew from 164 companies in late 2018 to over 6,600 by November 2024. And thousands more have committed to lower their emissions.

It’s not always a smooth road, however. Some of those companies – including big names like Microsoft and Walmart – have had to pull back on some of their SBTi commitments.

We study the history of SBTi pledges to understand these commitments and what can undermine them. We believe there is more to the story of these pullbacks than meets the eye.

What is net zero?

To understand corporate climate commitments, let’s start with the concept of “net zero.”

The Paris Agreement, an international treaty on climate change, aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) and ideally to 1.5 C (2.7 F). Meeting the more ambitious target of 1.5 C will require reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by around 2050.

Net zero is the point at which the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere is balanced by greenhouse gases removed, either through natural sources like forests or technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

The Science Based Targets initiative, developed alongside the Paris Agreement in 2015, provides a framework to help companies align their efforts with the 1.5 C goal.

SBTi commitments have grown quickly

To join the initiative, companies begin by signing a letter of commitment to set near-term (2030) and long-term (2050) targets for reducing their emissions. Companies have 24 months to develop targets that adhere to SBTi guidelines. If the targets are validated and approved by SBTi, the company announces its targets publicly. The targets must be revalidated every five years, or they expire.

The number of global companies committing to and setting targets with SBTi has grown rapidly in recent years.

By the end of 2023, 7,929 companies representing 39% of global market capitalization had committed to set targets, and 4,205 had targets already validated by SBTi. By November 2024, that number had grown to 6,614.

This impressive participation is particularly significant given SBTi’s high expectations. SBTi requires near-term targets to be set so companies reduce emissions by at least 42% by 2030 from 2020 levels.

Why some companies have pulled back

So, why are companies like, Walmart, Microsoft and Amazon scaling back their commitments with SBTi?

While some people attribute these moves to political pressure from fossil fuel supporters, a closer look at data since 2013 reveals a more complex set of factors that may better explain their actions.

We found that, over the past decade, 695 companies either withdrew near- or long-term commitments or had a commitment that expired and was terminated by SBTi. These actions were concentrated in two distinct periods.

The first period followed SBTi’s decision in April 2019 to update its criteria, including tightening the minimum target from under 2 C to either “well below 2 C” or 1.5 C. We believe several companies were unprepared to meet the new requirements. Among the 500 companies that had either committed to or set a target by the end of 2018, 94 (18.8%) terminated their initial commitments after the criteria changed.

The second period was after January 2023, when SBTi introduced a new compliance policy and began removing commitments that had expired. In this period, 531 commitments were terminated – 497 of them because the commitment expired, and 16 because the company withdrew.

It’s important to recognize that SBTi strategically raised the bar to encourage companies to accelerate their progress in addressing climate change.

Reasons some companies have struggled

In a report in March 2024, SBTi provided a candid look at companies’ climate commitments from 2019 to 2021 and, importantly, where they struggled.

Approximately half of the companies that responded to its survey identified the complexity of addressing Scope 3 emissions – emissions from a company’s supply chain and use of its products – as a primary obstacle to setting net-zero targets. The supply chain is often considered a blind spot for measuring environmental impact and is difficult for companies to control.

On the day the report was released, SBTi removed the long-term commitments of 239 companies. About 60% of those companies had near-term targets that remained.

Amazon has more than 15,000 electric delivery vans on the road as part of its effort to cut its energy emissions. However, it has struggled with cutting emissions generated by its suppliers.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

This helps explain the news around companies such as Walmart, Microsoft and Amazon.

Walmart’s and Microsoft’s long-term net-zero commitments were terminated, though both companies still have valid near-term targets with SBTi.

Moreover, both reaffirm their environmental commitments in their annual reports. Walmart is currently finalizing its Scope 3 emissions analysis to inform future strategy development, and Microsoft is investing in carbon removal technologies to become carbon-negative by 2030.

Amazon presents a more challenging case. The company may have faced difficulty meeting SBTi’s stringent mandate, particularly around supply chain emissions. Amazon has said it is still committed to reaching net-zero emissions and plans to explore setting targets with other organizations.

Many companies are on track

Our analysis of SBTi’s progress data, which includes all companies that had set a target by 2022 for which SBTi has emissions data, reveals that companies are cutting their emissions by a median annual rate of 5.4%.

Looking just at direct emissions from companies’ operations (Scope 1) and their purchased electricity (Scope 2), companies did even better. The median annual emissions decrease was 7.25% for companies with both Scope 1 and Scope 2 targets.

Scope 2 emissions are the low-hanging fruit and frequently align with cost-saving measures like improving energy efficiency.

Scope 3 emissions, those generated by companies’ suppliers and by consumer use of their products, are the biggest challenge. Companies with a separate Scope 3 target only reduced those emissions by a median annual rate of about 3%.

In 2024, SBTi announced plans to revise its Net-Zero Standard and allow companies to use carbon offsets to meet their Scope 3 emissions targets, drawing intense criticism. Carbon offsets allow companies to pay projects to reduce emissions on their behalf, such as by planting trees or managing forests.

SBTi’s challenge lies in finding a balance that maintains the integrity of its standards while encouraging broader participation, especially from high-impact industries.

Other ways companies are reducing emissions

While setting and achieving SBTi targets signals a strong commitment to combating climate change, many companies are setting emissions goals and working toward them without joining SBTi.

An example is the Drawdown Georgia Business Compact. It was created to accelerate the adoption of 20 technology- and market-ready solutions and includes nearly 70 companies, from multinationals headquartered in Georgia like Delta and UPS to small- and medium-size enterprises operating in the state.

Through the compact, companies are advancing initiatives with local economic benefits. For example, they are exploring ways to maximize Georgia forests’ ability to remove carbon and discussing effective ways to deploy sustainable aviation fuels.

The road to net-zero emissions will be bumpy. Yet the rapid growth of global corporate commitments, as well as action by a wider range of companies at the regional level, suggests corporate efforts are nevertheless moving forward. Läs mer…

Type text into AI image and video generators, and you’ll often see outputs of unusual, sometimes creepy, pictures.

In a way, this is a feature, not a bug, of generative AI. And artists are wielding this aesthetic to create a new storytelling art form.

The tools, such as Midjourney to generate images, Runway and Sora to produce videos, and Luma AI to create 3D objects, are relatively cheap or free to use. They allow filmmakers without access to major studio budgets or soundstages to make imaginative short films for the price of a monthly subscription.

I’ve studied these new works as the co-director of the AI for Media & Storytelling studio at the University of Southern California.

Surveying the increasingly captivating output of artists from around the world, I partnered with curators Jonathan Wells and Meg Grey Wells to produce the Flux Festival, a four-day showcase of experiments in AI filmmaking, in November 2024.

While this work remains dizzyingly eclectic in its stylistic diversity, I would argue that it offers traces of insight into our contemporary world. I’m reminded that in both literary and film studies, scholars believe that as cultures shift, so do the way we tell stories.

With this cultural connection in mind, I see five visual trends emerging in film.

1. Morphing, blurring imagery

In her “NanoFictions” series, the French artist Karoline Georges creates portraits of transformation. In one short, “The Beast,” a burly man mutates from a two-legged human into a hunched, skeletal cat, before morphing into a snarling wolf.

The metaphor – man is a monster – is clear. But what’s more compelling is the thrilling fluidity of transformation. There’s a giddy pleasure in seeing the figure’s seamless evolution that speaks to a very contemporary sensibility of shapeshifting across our many digital selves.

Karoline Georges’ short film ‘The Beast.’

This sense of transformation continues in the use of blurry imagery that, in the hands of some artists, becomes an aesthetic feature rather than a vexing problem.

Theo Lindquist’s “Electronic Dance Experiment #3,” for example, begins as a series of rapid-fire shots showing flashes of nude bodies in a soft smear of pastel colors that pulse and throb. Gradually it becomes clear that this strange fluidity of flesh is a dance. But the abstraction in the blur offers its own unique pleasure; the image can be felt as much as it can be seen.

2. The surreal

Thousands of TikTok videos demonstrate how cringey AI images can get, but artists can wield that weirdness and craft it into something transformative. The Singaporean artist known as Niceaunties creates videos that feature older women and cats, riffing on the concept of the “auntie” from Southeast and East Asian cultures.

In one recent video, the aunties let loose clouds of powerful hairspray to hold up impossible towers of hair in a sequence that grows increasingly ridiculous. Even as they’re playful and poignant, the videos created by Niceaunties can pack a political punch. They comment on assumptions about gender and age, for example, while also tackling contemporary issues such as pollution.

On the darker side, in a music video titled “Forest Never Sleeps,” the artist known as Doopiidoo offers up hybrid octopus-women, guitar-playing rats, rooster-pigs and a wood-chopping ostrich-man. The visual chaos is a sweet match for the accompanying death metal music, with surrealism returning as a powerful form.

Doopiidoo’s uncanny music video ‘Forest Never Sleeps’ leverages artificial intelligence to create surreal visuals.
Doopiidoo

3. Dark tales

The often-eerie vibe of so much AI-generated imagery works well for chronicling contemporary ills, a fact that several filmmakers use to unexpected effect.

In “La Fenêtre,” Lucas Ortiz Estefanell of the AI agency SpecialGuestX pairs diverse image sequences of people and places with a contemplative voice-over to ponder ideas of reality, privacy and the lives of artificially generated people. At the same time, he wonders about the strong desire to create these synthetic worlds. “When I first watched this video,” recalls the narrator, “the meaning of the image ceased to make sense.”

In the music video titled “Closer,” based on a song by Iceboy Violet and nueen, filmmaker Mau Morgó captures the world-weary exhaustion of Gen Z through dozens of youthful characters slumbering, often under the green glow of video screens. The snapshot of a generation that has come of age in the era of social media and now artificial intelligence, pictured here with phones clutched close to their bodies as they murmur in their sleep, feels quietly wrenching.

The music video for ‘Closer’ spotlights a generation awash in screens.
Mau Morgó

4. Nostalgia

Sometimes filmmakers turn to AI to capture the past.

Rome-based filmmaker Andrea Ciulu uses AI to reimagine 1980s East Coast hip-hop culture in “On These Streets,” which depicts the city’s expanse and energy through breakdancing as kids run through alleys and then spin magically up into the air.

Ciulu says that he wanted to capture New York’s urban milieu, all of which he experienced at a distance, from Italy, as a kid. The video thus evokes a sense of nostalgia for a mythic time and place to create a memory that is also hallucinatory.

Andrea Ciulu’s short film ‘On These Streets.’

Similarly, David Slade’s “Shadow Rabbit” borrows black-and-white imagery reminiscent of the 1950s to show small children discovering miniature animals crawling about on their hands. In just a few seconds, Slade depicts the enchanting imagination of children and links it to generated imagery, underscoring AI’s capacities for creating fanciful worlds.

5. New times, new spaces

In his video for the song “The Hardest Part” by Washed Out, filmmaker Paul Trillo creates an infinite zoom that follows a group of characters down the seemingly endless aisle of a school bus, through the high school cafeteria and out onto the highway at night. The video perfectly captures the zoominess of time and the collapse of space for someone young and in love haplessly careening through the world.

The freewheeling camera also characterizes the work of Montreal-based duo Vallée Duhamel, whose music video “The Pulse Within” spins and twirls, careening up and around characters who are cut loose from the laws of gravity.

In both music videos, viewers experience time and space as a dazzling, topsy-turvy vortex where the rules of traditional time and space no longer apply.

In Vallée Duhamel’s ‘The Pulse Within,’ the rules of physics no longer apply.
Source

Right now, in a world where algorithms increasingly shape everyday life, many works of art are beginning to reflect how intertwined we’ve become with computational systems.

What if machines are suggesting new ways to see ourselves, as much as we’re teaching them to see like humans? Läs mer…

On Nov. 27, 1949, prima ballerina Maria Tallchief waited for her cue in the wings of the City Center in downtown Manhattan, preparing to take the stage in the New York City Ballet’s premiere of “Firebird.”

This production was a reimagining of a famous ballet based on a Russian folktale and featured an Osage ballerina who forced the dance world to reimagine who could be one of their biggest stars. In that moment, Tallchief had no idea that she was about to make history, not only for the New York City Ballet, but in her journey toward becoming America’s first prima ballerina.

To be a prima ballerina, or the female “first principal dancer” of a company, is to be recognized for one’s superior technique, artistry and stage presence, and Tallchief’s “electrifying appearance” as the Firebird reflected her mastery of these elements.

In my work as a professor of Indigenous literatures and cultures, I often introduce my students to works and artists that they’ve never heard of before, including Maria Tallchief. This November, in honor of Native American Heritage Month and in recognition of the 75th anniversary of the New York City Ballet’s “Firebird” premiere, I want to highlight the integral role that Tallchief played in bringing ballet to the United States.

She and her younger sister Marjorie were both acclaimed ballerinas who dazzled audiences around the globe from the 1940s-1960s, a time when most Americans wrongly assumed that Indigenous people were unable to participate in modern life. During this era, Congress passed legislation aimed at erasing Indigenous nations’ rights of self-governance, and scholars contributed to the stereotype that Indigenous people would lose their cultural and political traditions.

Artists like the Tallchief sisters rejected those stereotypes in vivid motion, pursuing their passion for dance while honoring their shared heritage.

Early life

Tallchief was born Elizabeth “Betty” Maria Tall Chief on Jan. 24, 1925, in Fairfax, Oklahoma. Her parents were Ruth Porter and Alexander Tall Chief, and she was raised in a prominent family steeped in Osage traditions.

As young girls, Maria and Marjorie both showed an aptitude for dance, and the family decided to move to California to access the best teachers to train them. The Tallchief girls, who by then had joined their two last names, excelled under their new instructors, and Maria would go on to join the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo, a prestigious dance company that traveled throughout Europe and the United States.

She excelled in Ballet Russe’s corps de ballet (ensemble dancers), mastering the technique and stage presence necessary to earn the rank of soloist. However, there was one practice that other famous dancers had adopted that Tallchief rebuffed, and that was changing her last name to “Tolchieva,” or “Tallchieva” to sound more “Russian,” as Russians were thought to be the most talented dancers. She was proud of her last name and her heritage and refused to bend to company pressure to conform.

Becoming the Firebird

It was during her time with Ballet Russe that Tallchief met the choreographer George Balanchine, who noticed her talent and began to create new roles for her.

After a brief courtship, Balanchine offered Tallchief a dual proposal: become his wife and join his new company that he was establishing in New York. This would be Balanchine’s second attempt at founding a company with the American philanthropist Lincoln Kirstein.

Tallchief’s energetic style and technical brilliance would bring Balanchine’s choreography to life, so she was a key to this endeavor’s success. From their partnership, Ballet Society Inc., later renamed New York City Ballet, was created.

In her memoir “America’s First Prima Ballerina,” Tallchief recalls that the premiere of “Firebird” was a make-or-break moment for the fledgling ballet company, for whom “seasons were brief, [and] money was tight.”

Moreover, while Tallchief was Balanchine’s muse, she did not feel like a source of artistic inspiration that evening. She was recovering from a tonsillectomy, wearing a costume that had only just arrived that morning and preparing to execute a complex jump that she and her partner hadn’t mastered yet.

However, when the curtain rose, Tallchief turned in an electric performance that embodied the magical Firebird of lore, completing the difficult jump with such grace that, as she recounted in her memoir, “an audible sigh rose in the audience.”

Far from being the disaster Tallchief feared, the ballet proved to be one of the company’s greatest accomplishments. She recalled that once the performance concluded, the New York City Center erupted into applause, sounding like a football stadium “after somebody’s made a touchdown.”

Maria Tallchief in George Balanchine’s ‘Firebird.’

‘A new marvel’

Critics raved about the ballet and Tallchief in particular. Dance critic John Martin of The New York Times declared that Balanchine had choreographed a role perfectly tailored to match Tallchief’s skills, and “she dances it like a million dollars. On second thought, make it two million.”

The composer of “Firebird,” Igor Stravinsky, sent Balanchine a telegram congratulating him on the “new marvel” that he and Tallchief had created with his “old Firbird.” The ecstatic response legitimized the New York City Ballet as a successful company.

Tallchief’s work was not limited to the New York City Ballet, as she headlined a successful tour with American Ballet Theatre to Russia during the Cold War and danced for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower during “An American Pageant for the Arts.” In 1954, she rejoined the Ballet Russe for a tour and became the highest-paid ballerina in the world.

Back in Oklahoma, June 29 was dubbed “Maria Tallchief Day,” and the Osage Nation honored her as “Princess Wa-Xthe-Thonba, Woman of Two Standards,” alluding to her status as a prima ballerina and an Osage citizen. Also, as captured in this name, she showed that despite assumptions to the contrary, Indigenous people could both exceed the standards of Western arts and culture, and then set new standards along the way.

As 2024 draws to a close, we are nearing the centenary anniversary of Maria Tallchief’s birth. Tallchief once said a “ballerina takes steps given to her and makes them her own.” As America’s first prima ballerina, her “steps” included establishing a new American ballet tradition while also reflecting Osage ingenuity and resilience. Läs mer…

OpenAI, the tech company that created the popular ChatGPT chatbot, is at a crossroads.

It began as a nonprofit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence systems smarter than humans. Since its founding, OpenAI has boasted that it was upholding its nonprofit goal – “to build artificial general intelligence (AGI) that is safe and benefits all of humanity.”

Now, its tune has changed. OpenAI’s leadership is reportedly taking steps to transform it into a for-profit company. If that happens, the nonprofit would lose control.

We are law professors who specialize in nonprofits. As we explained in an earlier article, all charities must devote their assets to their legal purposes. If OpenAI hoped to have a quickie divorce from its charitable obligations, it is now learning how costly that could be.

Proposing divorce from charitable vows

OpenAI began in 2015 as a scientific research nonprofit. Four years later, its board decided that achieving its lofty goals required more than gifts and grants.

It reorganized to accommodate and attract private investment. As a result, the company known as OpenAI is neither a single nonprofit nor for-profit company; it is a set of interlocking entities, including the for-profit subsidiary that conducts its operations.

As a whole, OpenAI is ultimately required to advance the nonprofit’s purposes. These purposes represent the promises OpenAI made to the public when it was founded.

OpenAI’s nonprofit certificate of incorporation states the purposes: “to provide funding for research, development and distribution of technology related to artificial intelligence,” thus producing technology that “will benefit the public.”

For almost a decade, OpenAI proclaimed its commitment to safe scientific development, making it a higher priority than earning profits. For example, OpenAI warned investors that “the Company may never make a profit,” and that “it would be wise to view an investment … in the spirit of a donation.”

Nevertheless, if profits were made, investors like Microsoft were entitled to receive them – collecting up to 100 times their investment, before the nonprofit parent could take any share of those gains.

Having second thoughts

CEO Sam Altman and his colleagues have apparently had second thoughts about their vows.

According to widespread media reports citing unnamed sources, they want to restructure and remove the nonprofit parent from its controlling perch, turning the rest of the company into a benefit company – a type of for-profit enterprise with some public-interest goals.

Those media reports relay that the US$6.6 billion in recent investments in OpenAI is conditioned on OpenAI converting to a for-profit company within two years.

If this conversion fails, OpenAI must return that money. Investors also want to remove any caps on their investment returns. Altman himself now reportedly wants to own a piece of the company.

Not moving so fast

Changing a nonprofit to a for-profit company, known as a “conversion,” often requires only a board vote and filing forms with state regulators.

Delaware, where OpenAI was established, would regulate at least this filing process. When a nonprofit has significant operations in another state, then that state also has authority to regulate the conversion. In this case, that would be California, where OpenAI is headquartered and holds most of its assets.

The state attorneys general for Delaware and California are reviewing the proposed restructure. Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings has asked for more information about how the nonprofit’s rights would be protected if OpenAI carries out its reported restructuring plans.

And California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that his office is “committed to protecting charitable assets for their intended purpose.”

With OpenAI valued at $157 billion, the nonprofit’s fair share could make it the wealthiest foundation in the United States. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, currently the largest U.S.-based foundation, holds $75.2 billion in assets. Harvard’s endowment, the largest for a U.S. university, has about $53.2 billion in its coffers.

State regulators, which supervise the transformation of nonprofits into for-profits, oversaw many conversions of health insurers and hospitals in the 1990s. For example, the California attorney general oversaw Blue Cross Blue Shield of California’s payments of $3.2 billion to establish two new health care foundations when it converted. Critics subsequently pointed out that investors in such for-profits made even greater gains a short time later.

We believe that if the nonprofit gets its fair share of OpenAI, those health care transactions would pale in comparison to the scale of an OpenAI conversion.

There are legal ramifications if a group decides to drop its nonprofit status.
Suriya Phosri/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Estimating what’s at stake

To be sure, the nonprofit would not be entitled to receive the full $157 billion in a conversion of OpenAI. So what is the nonprofit entitled to?

First, the nonprofit parent has a right to the value of its share of ownership of the for-profit operations. That value would include the value of the properties owned by the for-profit subsidiary, such as ChatGPT.

The nonprofit should also be compensated for giving up its control over the whole OpenAI enterprise. Typically, investment bankers assess the value of control somewhere between 20% and 40% of the value of the company.

What could be the hardest part of this process would be estimating the value of the right to OpenAI’s future profits. Under the current arrangement, investors first get 100 times their investments in OpenAI before the nonprofit receives any share of the profits.

Microsoft has invested $13 billion in OpenAI so far. But let’s assume total investment of $10 billion: OpenAI would need to make $1 trillion before the nonprofit would get its piece of the pie. Since only 10 companies have made over 100 times the amount invested in them in the past decade, this is a high bar.

Protecting the nonprofit

Although state attorneys general have the leading role in protecting the nonprofit, they do not have to do this work alone.

First and foremost, the existing nonprofit’s board members are legally required to protect the nonprofit and its purposes. This puts them roughly on the same team as the state attorneys general.

The board could decide that OpenAI’s charitable purposes are best protected by spinning off the for-profit company. Even so, it must ensure that the nonprofit is adequately compensated.

Other authorities may play a role. For example, if a state attorney general can’t broker an agreement with OpenAI, they might farm out the work. Either a state attorney general or a court could authorize a third party, such as another charity, to bring a claim to protect the nonprofit assets.

In addition, the IRS could step in.

The tax collection and enforcement agency has the responsibility to ensure that assets held by a nonprofit tax-exempt organization remain within the charitable sector. In this case, that would mean ensuring that OpenAI’s nonprofit gets what it’s owed.

As an added wrinkle, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has already weighed in as a former board member. He filed a lawsuit in February 2024 to protect OpenAI’s charitable commitments, withdrew it, and refiled it. Now, he has brought Microsoft into the fray, arguing that Microsoft’s partnership with OpenAI is allowing the two companies to bypass antitrust laws.

We’re certain that if OpenAI does embark on a journey to for-profit status, that road will be long and bumpy. In determining the value of OpenAI’s assets and who owns them, the state regulators and the nonprofit board are empowered to fully protect the nonprofit – not OpenAI’s CEO, its employees, the for-profit company itself, or any investor. Läs mer…

Antimicrobial resistance happens when bacteria and other microbes that can cause infections gain the ability to resist treatment by antibiotics or other antimicrobial medicines.

Pneumonia, urinary tract infections and sepsis are some of the infections that are usually treated with antibiotics.

Newborn babies are particularly at risk from infections by antimicrobial resistant bacteria. This is because of their immature immune systems.

The risk to babies is greatest in low- and middle-income countries, where infections among newborns are
3 to 20 times higher than in developed countries.

In 2020, 2.4 million newborn babies died of sepsis in the first month of their lives.

Most of these deaths happened in sub-Saharan Africa.

Sepsis is an immune system overreaction to an infection somewhere in the body.

Researchers at the Ineos Oxford Institute for Antimicrobial Research carried out a study to investigate antimicrobial resistance-carrying bacteria recovered from surfaces in 10 hospitals from six low- and middle-income countries.

The hospitals were in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda and South Africa.

In total, 6,290 hospital surface swabs were processed from intensive care units for newborns and maternity wards.

The swabs were taken from:

surfaces near the sink drain (including sink basin, faucet, faucet handles, and surrounding countertop)
emergency neonatal care
ward furniture and surfaces
mobile medical equipment
medical equipment.

Many of the surfaces were found to be colonised with bacteria carrying antibiotic resistance genes. The largest growth was detected near sink drains.

These genes can confer resistance to carbapenem antibiotics, which are last-resort therapies for treating newborn sepsis.

These findings are alarming. They indicate that newborn babies could be at risk of infection by bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. This could lead to newborn sepsis.

Bacteria colonisation

In the study, whole genome sequencing was used to identify bacterial species carrying resistance to carbapenems.

Carbapenems are a last resort antibiotic used when other medicines no longer work to treat an infection.

In the study, 18 different bacterial species carrying carbapenem antibiotic resistance genes were recovered from hospital surfaces.

These included bacteria that can cause pneumonia, urinary tract infections and blood infections.

In one of the hospitals, a bacterial clone which was present on hospital surfaces was at the same time found causing sepsis among newborn babies.

This could mean that bacteria from the hospital surfaces could potentially be transmitted to newborn babies. Future research will need to confirm this.

Antibiotic resistance genes are often found on mobile parts of DNA that can be passed from one bacterium to another. This is through a process called horizontal gene transfer.

These mobile elements move between nearby bacteria, helping resistance genes to spread. This means that antibiotic resistance can quickly pass to different bacteria on the same hospital surface or across various surfaces. It makes infections harder to treat and increases risks for patients.

The study findings highlighted the possible antimicrobial resistance spread between different types of bacteria on the same hospital surface or across different surfaces. This was due to the presence of similar mobile genetic elements in different bacterial species.

This puts patients at greater risk of acquiring an infection. And their treatment options could be limited because the bacteria infecting them are resistant to antibiotics.

Looking ahead

Antibiotic resistance is a substantial economic burden to the whole world.

In 2006, in the US alone, deaths associated with pneumonia and sepsis, mostly, cost the US economy US$8 billion.

Our work points to the need for an urgent review of infection prevention and control guidelines, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

A number of steps could reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections. For example, ensuring:

safe drinking water
vaccinations to reduce infection and the need for antibiotics
hospital infrastructure for waste management and recycling
tailored infection prevention and control programmes in health facilities, including cleaning and disinfecting hospital surfaces.

A major challenge is that hospitals in low-resourced countries may not have funds and resources needed to implement or maintain these measures.

Financial institutions and governments therefore ought to invest in these preventive programmes.

Accessible, effective and sustainable infection prevention and control measures could prevent the deaths of thousands of newborn deaths. Läs mer…

Donald Trump’s second term promises to deliver historic threats to US press freedom – directly from the Oval Office.

The president-elect made it clear during the campaign that he had the press in his sights. He told a rally on the eve of the election that he “wouldn’t mind” if an assassin shot the journalists standing in front of him.

Ahead of the election, he also signalled his desire to jail journalists, hunt down their confidential sources, cancel the broadcast licences of major networks and criminalise work to counter disinformation.

Journalists in the US – a country long at the forefront of global press freedom advocacy – now find themselves facing threats more familiar to their colleagues in the Philippines, Hungary or Venezuela. And it is from journalists in such countries that the US press must now learn how to defend press freedom and fight for facts.

The second Trump administration promises to be resistant to core practices of critical independent journalism and the implications for the industry are chilling.

Journalists could face increased threats of both politically motivated criticism and potential legal harassment. For example, Trump has repeatedly used the legal system against journalists whose coverage doesn’t benefit him.

He has sued many major outlets for defamation since 2016. He recently launched legal action against CBS over its 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.

Read more:
Loyalty trumps everything – what we know about the 47th president-elect’s cabinet

There’s also likely to be greater impunity for online threats towards US journalists and news organisations. For instance, X has recently announced updates to its block function (allowing accounts to view people who have blocked them) which critics say could increase harassment.

And, as a report from the International Center for Journalists and Unesco shows, online attacks can spill over into offline harm. Women and those of colour are likely to be most at risk.

Meanwhile, the fight within the US to legislate against hate speech and dangerous disinformation on social media platforms appears to have been lost.

Many pro-Trump Republicans have also long argued that work to defend human rights, public health and election integrity on social media platforms through curation and regulation are a violation of “free speech”. They claim such work is biased against conservative perspectives, despite several studies debunking this claim.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump referred to efforts to mitigate political mis- and disinformation as “the censorship cartel”. Meanwhile, he pushed numerous falsehoods from the campaign podium.

During his first term, Donald Trump often used the term ‘fake news’ to attack media he didn’t like.

Even before this election cycle began, Republicans ramped up their efforts to derail fact-checking work in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection – which itself was fuelled by disinformation, such as the suggestion that the election was “stolen”.

But in a 2022 statement, Trump announced that upon reelection he would ban federal agencies, employees and money from being involved in any efforts that he claims impede lawful speech and investigate those involved in these activities. This includes tackling, labelling or flagging dis- and misinformation, which he misrepresents as censorship.

This promise was reinforced by Elon Musk immediately after the election in a post on X. Musk has proved to be one of the loudest opponents of efforts to tackle disinformation, as demonstrated by his attempts to sue non-profit research centres focused on countering online hate speech.

Cutting critical funding

During his first term, Trump tried to dramatically slash the budget for public service media. These are publicly funded broadcasters, which are expected to provide independent news reporting. Under the Trump administration funding was cut from US$465 million (£365 million) to just US$30 million (£23.6 million), a move that would have threatened local and investigative reporting around the country.

These cuts were ultimately blocked by Congress, but it is unclear if Republican legislators will stand up to Trump in his second term.

During Trump’s first term, there was also intense politicisation and attacks on journalism at the Voice of America (VoA), the US’s oldest and largest international public service broadcaster.

In 2020 he appointed a new CEO, Michael Pack, to run the US Agency for Global Media, its parent company, and overhaul the operation. In his short seven-month term, Pack fired senior officials, froze reporting budgets, and launched investigations into supposedly biased journalists.

The public broadcaster PBS, which produces some of the most important accountability reporting in the US, is also extremely vulnerable due to funding cuts.

Meanwhile, Musk, who is set to play a major role in cutting government spending and activities in the new Trump administration, has a track record of campaigning to defund public service media.

With all these risks, international press freedom organisations have expressed alarm at the prospect of Trump escalating his attacks on the press in a second term.

Yet, a pre-election survey commissioned by the International Center for Journalists suggested that these concerns are not landing with the US public. The nationwide poll of 1,020 adults found that nearly one-quarter (23%) of Americans surveyed did not regard political leaders threatening, harassing, or abusing journalists or news organisations as a threat to press freedom.

Given what we’ve seen from the kind of “strongman” politician that Trump appears to admire, as well his actions during his first term, there’s good reason to believe this threat will be very real over the next four years. Läs mer…

The spectacular comeback of US president-elect Donald Trump has taken the world by surprise. No doubt people can point to various explanations for his election victory, but in my view, the science of information will pave the way towards deeper insights. Unless the Democrats – and their counterparts around the world – can develop a better understanding of how people receive and reject information, they will never fully understand what happened or successfully fight elections in the future.

There is a fundamental law of nature, known in physical science as the second law. This says that, over time, noise will overwhelm information and uncertainties will dominate. Order will be swamped by confusion and chaos. From a single particle to the whole universe, every system known to science obeys this law. That includes political systems, or societies.

Whenever there is progress in communication technology, people circulate more and more inessential or inaccurate information. In a political system, this is what leads to the noise domination described by the second law.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

In science, the quantity that measures the degree of uncertainty is known as entropy. The second law therefore says that entropy can only increase, at least on average.

While entropy does not reduce spontaneously, it is possible to reduce it by spending energy – that is, at a cost. This is exactly what life is about – we create internal order, thus reducing entropy, by consuming energy in the form of food.

For a biological system to survive, it has to reduce uncertainties about the state of its environment. So there are two opposing trends: we don’t like uncertainties and try to reduce them. But we live in a world dominated by growing uncertainties. Understanding the balance of these two forces holds the key to appreciating some of the most perplexing social phenomena – such as why people would vote for a man who has been convicted of multiple crimes and strongly signalled his autocratic tendencies.

The world is filled with uncertainties and information technology is enhancing the level of that uncertainty at an incredible pace. The development of AI is only propelling the increase of uncertainty and will continue to do so at an unimaginable scale.

In the unregulated wild west of the internet, tech giants have created a monster that feeds us with noise and uncertainty. The result is rapidly-growing entropy – there is a sense of disorder at every turn.

Each of us, as a biological system, has the desire to reduce this entropy. That is why, for example, we instinctively avoid information sources that are not aligned with our views. They will create uncertainties. If you are a liberal or leftwing voter and have found yourself avoiding the news after Trump’s re-election, it’s probably linked to your desire to minimise entropy.

The need for certainty

People are often puzzled about why societies are becoming more polarised and information is becoming more segmented. The answer is simple – the internet, social media, AI and smartphones are pumping out entropy at a rate unseen in the history of Earth. No biological system has ever encountered such a challenge – even if it is a self-imposed one. Drastic actions are required to regain certainties, even if they are false certainties.

Trump has grasped the fact that people need certainty. He repeatedly offered words of reassurances – “I will fix it”. Whether he will is a more complex question but thinking about that will only generate uncertainties – so it’s better avoided. The Democrats, in contrast, merely offered the assurance of a status quo of prolonged uncertainties.

Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Gaza, Kamala Harris remarked that she would do everything in her power to bring an end to the war. But the Biden-Harris administration has been doing exactly that for some time with little progress being made.

Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Ukraine, Harris remarked that she would stand up against Putin. But the Biden-Harris administration has been merely sending weapons to Ukraine to prolong the war. If that is what “standing up against Putin” means, then most Americans would prefer to see a fall in their grocery prices from an end to the war.

Some advice is best left unsaid.
Flicker/Number 10, CC BY

Harris argued that Trump is a fascist. This may prove to be true, but what that means exactly is unclear to most Americans.

While Harris’s campaign message of hope was a good initiative, the Democrats failed in delivering certainty and assurance. By the same token they failed to control the information space. Above all, they failed the Americans because, while Trump may well bring an end to the war in Ukraine and Gaza in some form, his climate policy will be detrimental to all Americans, with lasting impacts.

Without understanding the science of information, the blame game currently underway will not bring Democrats anywhere. And there are lessons to be learned for other centre-left governments, like the UK Labour government.

It is not entirely inconceivable that the former prime minister Boris Johnson, encouraged by the events in the US, hopes for a dramatic return to the throne at the next general election. If so, prime minister Keir Starmer must find a way to avoid following the footsteps of Biden and Harris. He must provide people with certainty and assurance. Läs mer…

The Albanese government has rewritten the mandate of the Future Fund – the nation’s sovereign wealth fund – to urge it to direct investment into the “national priorities” of housing, the energy transition and infrastructure, where the risk and returns are acceptable.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said a new “investment mandate” and “statement of expectations” would modernise, refresh and renew the fund so it played “an enduring and prominent role” in the economy.

The ministers said the Australian economy faced big structural shifts coming from the global net zero transformation as well as technological and demographic changes and global fragmentation.

The $230 billion fund, which is independent in its investment decisions, is headed by former Labor minister Greg Combet.

The new investment mandate “will require the fund to consider Australia’s national priorities in its investment decisions, where possible, appropriate and consistent with strong returns”.

These priorities are:

boosting the housing supply
supporting Australia’s energy transition
delivering improved infrastructure including economic resilience and security infrastructure

The government stresses the new mandate does not mean the fund would be making riskier or less profitable investments.

To provide certainty to the fund, the government says it would not start any draw-dwns until at least 2032-33. By then, the fund is expected to reach a worth of $380 billion, from its present $230 billion.

“The government remains committed to the Fund’s independence and commercial focus,” the ministers said.

“Its primary objective will continue to be to maximise returns, the benchmark return rate will remain at between 4% and 5% above CPI per annum over the long term, and there will be no change to the expected risk profile.

”The Fund will provide the same strong returns to the government’s balance sheet while supporting national priorities where it can.”

No legislation is needed for the changes.

The Future Fund said in a statement that the government’s announcement was an endorsement of its work over 18 years to deliver a “demanding investment mandate of CPI+ 4-5% a year over the long term”.

It said delivering this investment target remained the fund’s focus under the new investment mandate. The fund’s Board of Guardians “will continue to make investment decisions independent of the government with the priority of generating commercial returns”.

The fund said the priorities it had now been given aligned with its thinking.

It also noted various investments it presently has in infrastructure and the energy transition. It plans to appoint an executive director, energy transition, to help with efforts in this area.

Social media age ban: companies face fines up to $50 million

The government on Thursday will introduce its legislation to ban minors under 16 from accessing social media, with companies facing fines of up to $50 million for breaches.

Under the legislation, the onus will be on the plaforms, not the parents or children, who will not face penalties.

The penalties of up to $50 million will be for companies that systematically breach the law as well as for violations of enforceable industry codes and standards.

The bill also allows the minister to exclude specific classes of services that support the health and benefit of children.

It contains privacy provisions including that platforms ring-fence and destroy any information collected. Läs mer…

In the amphitheatre of Gladiator II, Ridley Scott trains his lens on fighters and emperors – but no account of ancient gladiators is complete without its devotees.

Eclipsing the modern superfan in adulation for their heroes, fans massed in the amphitheatre to see their favourites fight, taking on a mania with potential for disaster. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, in AD27 a poorly built arena at Fidenae, just outside Rome, collapsed under the spectators. The incident left 50,000 dead or injured.

But gladiator fandom extended well beyond the arena. In the summer of 2019, archaeologists uncovered a tavern in Pompeii that had been decorated to show the bloody outcome of a gladiator fight. This hints at the way “sports talk” pervaded life in the city.

There’s more evidence in Roman author Petronius’s mid-first-century BC satire The Satyricon. His fictional freedmen banter about the merits of various fighters over dinner. The ubiquitous gladiator motifs found on Roman wine cups show that this kind of convivial exchange over dinner and drinks was common.

A glass gladiator cup, circa AD50–80.
The Met Fifth Avenue

Their passion could, however, turn fans from drinkers into fighters. At Pollentia (modern day Majorca), Emperor Tiberius needed soldiers to quell riots borne of frustration at the absence of gladiators from a local bigwig’s funeral.

Much like modern-day football hooliganism, gladiator fandom could be weaponised in intercommunal violence. In a 59BC gladiatorial show, Pompeians murderously assaulted their neighbours from Nuceria (modern day Nocera, near Naples), causing games to be banned at Pompeii and leading to exile for the instigator.

Fan favourites

Fans were drawn to gladiators for more than just their fighting skills. Stage names could emphasise their good looks, lent by physique, coiffure and armour. Pearl and Emerald, for example, sparkled with jewel-like lustre. Callimorphus flaunted his peerless body and Chrysomallos and Xanthos their blonde locks.

It was common for Romans to illustrate the erotic appeal of a gladiator by naming the Roman women who, metaphorically, lost their heads to fighters. The Roman poet Juvenal wrote of the fictional, or perhaps fictionalised, wife of a Roman senator, Eppia, who allegedly preferred the battered arena veteran Sergius to her husband.

A fresco depicting the AD59 riot between Pompeiians and Nucerians in the Pompeii amphitheater.
National Archaeological Museum, Naples., CC BY

Meanwhile Faustina, wife of Marcus Aurelius, is said in a 4th century biography of the emperor, to have confessed a passion for gladiators to her husband.

But these examples more reliably testify to elite male misogyny than to ancient reality. Seating regulations may have confined them to the higher tiers of the amphitheatres, but many women likely also had an interest in combat itself. Some were perhaps authors of the gladiatorial graffiti still legible on Pompeii’s walls.

Tombstones tell a less sensational story of gladiators’ sex lives, where their partnerships are described by the language of respectable matrimony.

Who were the gladiator superfans?

Gladiator fans could be found in all strata of Roman society. But the voices of elite fans are loudest today, as they were preserved in literary texts. Members of powerful families and emperors well knew that they must put on gladiatorial and other games, since presiding at them was central to political theatre.

Wary of Julius Caesar’s reputation for obvious disdain for gladiatorial combat, Emperor Augustus was instead a visibly enthused spectator. The crowd’s acclaim for his generosity and its appreciation of his sharing common pleasures helped to bolster the emperor’s authority. At the Colosseum, senators could see how the political land lay as the emperor was applauded (or not) by their public.

Emperors could gain popularity with their people by visibly enjoying gladiatorial combat, as shown by Fred Hechinger and Joseph Quinn in Gladiator II.
Landmark Media/Alamy Stock Photo

Some emperors appreciated fighting technique close up. Titus was a parmularius (a fan of the “small shield” men), while his brother Domitian preferred the heavier-armed murmillones, named after the fish-like crest on their helmets.

But when they addressed the subject of gladiators directly, most elite men were usually ambivalent. Pagan and Christian authors, including Seneca and St Augustine, had no qualms over the shedding of gladiatorial blood. But they did regret the loss of reason among their peers as spectators, heady with emotion at the slaughter.

The genre in which these authors wrote also dictated what they said. Seneca, like Cicero, turned gladiators into philosophical examples, persevering in combat despite the vagaries of fortune.

But incidental literary references suggest that Roman elite males were closely acquainted with real gladiatorial nitty-gritty. Instructing would-be lawyers, for example, the Roman educator Quintilian reached for a gladiator’s fencing steps as a metaphor for a well-rehearsed argument.

Exceptionally well-preserved graffiti discovered on houses and tombs in Pompeii has brought us closer to understanding the ordinary fans of gladiators. In particular, the drawings of armoured combatants, which are captioned with their names, types and schools.

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.

Thoroughly versed in performer biographies, fans counted fights, wins and reprieves. This affinity went beyond individuals – men of the same status, neighbourhood or town crowded the stepped seating of the amphitheatres together, vociferously unified by ecstasy at a favourite’s success, or anguish at their defeat and death.

Yet while cinema foregrounds gladiators in our modern consciousness, ancient fans likely reserved greater passion for other performers – above all theatre and chariot racing.

When Roman authors, such as Pliny, decried the triviality of popular obsessions, it was chariot racing that came first to mind. And factions linked to chariot teams threatened political order on a scale never equalled by the amphitheatre. No known gladiator aficionado came close, for example, to the devoted fan who threw himself onto the burning pyre of his favourite chariot driver. Läs mer…