Forecasters predict Democrats to take House but race for Senate hard to call

Cambridge University Press

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBluesky

Email

In a forecasting special issue of PS: Political Science & Politics for the US midterm elections, all forecasters predict that the Democrats will capture the House of Representatives, but are split on who will emerge victorious in the Senate.

Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association (APSA), the special issue includes 17 studies showcasing a range of forecasting approaches and methodologies, from traditional political economy models to controversial betting markets and AI ‘synthetic personas’.

The US Congressional Midterm elections take place on 3 November 2026. They will see all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats contested, with control of Congress potentially decided by a handful of highly competitive races.

More broadly, the collection explores how political dynamics are reshaping both elections and the tools used to understand them, and asks whether traditional models can still make accurate predictions in a time of heightened polarisation and political change.

Dr John Kenny, co-Guest Editor of the special issue from the University of Mannheim and University of Southampton, said: “Midterm elections have historically seen the president’s party lose support, driven by economic concerns and falling approval ratings.

“But the political landscape in 2026 is somewhat atypical. Increased polarisation and widespread redistricting have introduced new uncertainties, creating challenges for predicting whether this election will follow established patterns or whether it will mark a significant shift in American politics.”

Predictions for 2026

Many of the studies in the special issue have made predictions on the outcomes of the midterm elections taking place on 3 November 2026.

The verdict was unanimous on a Democrat victory in the House race, with 12 out of 12 predictions in their favour.

Predictions for the Senate race were less clear. Some forecasts are calling it for the Republicans and others are predicting a Democrat victory. All are expecting a close and contentious electoral victory.

Dr Debra Leiter, co-Guest Editor from the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said: “With such a narrow Republican majority, Democrats require only modest gains to retake the House, but the Senate will be harder to flip due to the number of Republican-held seats considered secure. Record breaking spending, open-seat contests created by a wave of retirements, and unexpected candidate choices are expected to increase competitiveness across key battleground states.

“Coupled with the unique circumstances of the 2026 election, it’s a tough one to call. Will we see a return to the fundamentals of American election forecasting, or will it prove a challenge to the widespread beliefs about American electoral behaviour?”

Highlighted papers

Roberto Cerina. ‘Polling Without People: Can Silicon Samples of CASM-Inspired LLM Personae Mimic Human Respondents in Pre-Election Polling?’

Contact: Dr Robert Cerina, University of Amsterdam
r.cerina@uva.nl

Roberto Cerina explores whether AI-generated ‘synthetic personas’ can replicate human responses in pre-election polling. Cerina created detailed large language model personas based on factors such as age, gender, education and political identity.

The model’s key innovation is its ability to simulate media consumption. Using up-to-date news feeds, personas were exposed to current events and asked how those developments influenced their political preferences. This helps to overcome a limitation of conventional AI models, whose knowledge is restricted by training cut-off dates.

The model forecasts a Democratic victory in the House, with 58.4% of the national vote and around 292 seats. Though the forecast may overestimate Democratic support, the approach offers a transparent way to understand why voters change their preferences. The paper argues AI polling could be a complement to traditional surveys, offering more frequent, granular insights into public opinion.

Thomas Gruca and Thomas Rietz. ‘Forecasting 2026 Congressional Control: A Comparison of IEM and Kalshi Prediction Markets’

Contact: Professor Thomas Rietz, University of Iowa
thomas-rietz@uiowa.edu

Thomas Gruca and Thomas Rietz examine the Iowa Electronic Market (IEM), a classic futures election market, alongside Kalshi, one of the fastest growing online betting markets. They demonstrate the stability of IEM forecasts, in contrast to the greater instability of the Kalshi markets.

In separate markets, the IEM predicts that the most likely outcomes are a Democratic House victory and a Republican Senate majority. Kalshi markets predict the most likely outcomes are a Democratic House and Senate majority, but less consistently. In combined control markets, both indicate the most likely joint outcome is a Democratic sweep. While both produce similar predictions, the IEM markets have an established history of effective and reliable forecasts that may be less prone to certain kinds of market manipulation.

The most recent IEM prediction gave a 60 per cent chance that Democrats would take the House.

Kalshi predicted similar outcomes, but the chance of the Democrats taking the House was significantly higher at close to 90 per cent.

Both markets predict a Democratic Senate.

Peter Enns, Leigh Farah, Claudia Miner, Thomas Gareau-Paquette. ‘A District-Level Forecast of the 2026 U.S. House of Representatives Midterm Elections’

Contact: Professor Peter Enns, Cornell University
pe52@cornell.edu

Peter Enns et al. recognise that observers of the US midterm elections are likely focused on who will win the majority, yet 435 separate district contests will determine political authority in the House. Their model takes key election factors in each of these districts, including this year’s unique mid-decade redistricting, candidate success measures such as fundraising, and both national level and state level vote intention, to produce a forecast model that mixes national and localised information together in a new and effective way.

Based on 10,000 simulations using data from 100 days before the election, the forecast gives Democrats a 90 per cent chance of taking the House, with an expected total of 235 seats.

Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck. ‘Political economy forecasts: the 2026 midterms’

Contact: Professor Charles Tien, Hunter College, CUNY
ctien@hunter.cuny.edu

Professor Michael Lewis-Beck, University of Iowa
michael-lewis-beck@uiowa.edu

Charles Tien and Mike Lewis-Beck unveil a new forecast of the 2026 elections based on the long-running Political Economy Model. The model draws on three key predictors: economic performance, presidential approval ratings and the historical impact of midterm elections. The paper argues that voters reward governing parties when conditions are favourable, and punish them when they are not.

With President Donald Trump’s approval rating at around 35%, the model predicts Republicans will lose 33 House seats and lose their narrow majority. It also predicts the Democrats will pick up enough seats to retake the Senate. The forecast reflects the powerful historical tendency for presidents’ parties to suffer losses at midterms.

Stephen Quinlan and Michael Lewis-Beck: ‘Demslide or Republican resilience? A political history forecast of the 2026 US congressional elections’

Contact: Stephen Quinlan  
stephenpfquinlanwork@gmail.com

Professor Michael Lewis-Beck, University of Iowa
michael-lewis-beck@uiowa.edu

Drawing on decades of US political history, Stephen Quinlan and Mike Lewis-Beck have developed a forecasting model that examines the structural and historical conditions that have consistently influenced election outcomes over time. When one party controls the presidency, Senate and House simultaneously, voters have tended to impose an electoral penalty on the governing party.

With Republicans currently controlling all three branches, the model suggests conditions are favourable for Democratic gains. However, increasing political polarisation and a declining number of competitive House districts may limit gains. The researchers' central forecast projects Democrats winning 231 House seats and 50 Senate seats, giving them a 78% chance of recapturing the House and a 66% chance of winning control of the Senate.

Jack Rametta and Christopher Hare: ‘How Model Choice Obscures Forecast Uncertainty: The Rashomon Effect and the 2026 Senate’

Contact: Dr Christopher Hare, UC Davis
cdhare@ucdavis.edu

Jack Rametta and Christopher Hare have developed a forecasting model to predict US Senate election outcomes that reflects the growing nationalisation of congressional elections, where local candidate appeal and the incumbency advantage are increasingly outweighed by broader political forces such as presidential approval, partisanship and economic conditions.

The researchers argue that elections that were once shaped more heavily by state-level dynamics are now closely tied to voters’ perceptions of national political performance. As a result, even well-regarded incumbents can struggle to withstand unfavourable national trends.

As of late September, the forecast predicts Democrats will take 50 seats in the Senate, but given the high uncertainty, the forecast ranges from 45 to 56 seats.  Democrats are slightly more likely than not to secure a Senate majority, though the race remains highly competitive.

Olivia Quinn, Amanda Brush and Eric R. A. N. Smith: ‘Updating the Fundamentals: Forecasting the 2026 Midterm Election Post Gallup’

Contact: Dr Olivia Quinn, UC Santa Barbara
oquinn@ucsb.edu

The recent discontinuation of Gallup’s Presidential Approval polls, an 88-year tradition, poses a problem for many election forecasting models. Olivia Quinn, Amanda Brush and Eric R. A. N Smith show that these models can continue without it. They develop a proxy measure from RealClearPolitics’ poll average and use it to predict what will happen on election night.

As of the most recent quarter, their Congressional seat change forecast predicts sizable Democratic gains in both chambers, with Republicans predicted to lose nine seats in the Senate and 42 seats in the House.

Notes to Editors:

For general enquiries about the issue, please contact:

Dr Matt Midgley, Cambridge University Press & Assessment

+44 (0)1223 342979

matthew.midgley@cambridge.org

 

To speak to the guest editors, please contact:

 

Dr Debra Leiter, University of Missouri-Kansas City
leiterd@umkc.edu

 

Dr John Kenny, University of Mannheim/University of Southampton
J.P.Kenny@soton.ac.uk

 

Publication:

The Special Issue Forecasting the 2026 US Midterm Elections of PS: Political Science & Politics is published on behalf of the American Political Science Association by Cambridge University Press.

All papers in the special issue will be available here when published: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/accepted-manuscripts

Studies listed below and highlighted in this press release are strictly embargoed until Thursday 15 October 2026 at 00:01 UK time / 14 October at 19:01 US Eastern Time.

• Roberto Cerina. ‘Polling Without People: Can Silicon Samples of CASM-Inspired LLM Personae Mimic Human Respondents in Pre-Election Polling?’.
  https://DOI.org/10.1017/S1049096526103084
• Thomas Gruca and Thomas Rietz. ‘Forecasting 2026 Congressional Control: A Comparison of IEM and Kalshi Prediction Markets’. https://DOI.org/10.1017/S1049096526103023
• Peter Enns, Leigh Farah, Claudia Miner, Thomas Gareau-Paquette. ‘A District-Level Forecast of the 2026 U.S. House of Representatives Midterm Elections’. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096526103072
• Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck. ‘Political economy forecasts: the 2026 midterms’. https://DOI.org/10.1017/S104909652610290X
• Stephen Quinlan and Michael Lewis-Beck. ‘Demslide or Republican resilience? A political history forecast of the 2026 US congressional elections’. https://DOI.org/10.1017/S104909652610300X
• Jack Rametta and Christopher Hare: ‘How Model Choice Obscures Forecast Uncertainty: The Rashomon Effect and the 2026 Senate’. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096526103059
• Olivia Quinn, Amanda Brush and Eric R. A. N. Smith: ‘Updating the Fundamentals: Forecasting the 2026 Midterm Election Post Gallup’. https://DOI.org/10.1017/S1049096526103047

About Cambridge University Press  
Cambridge University Press is the academic and Bibles publisher of Cambridge University Press & Assessment. It publishes books and journals, serving customers in higher education through research, education products and services. It is part of the University of Cambridge, delivering trusted research and learning materials that spread knowledge, spark curiosity and aid understanding of the world we live in.  
cambridge.org/universitypress   

About American Political Science Association (APSA)
Founded in 1903, the American Political Science Association is the leading professional organization for the study of political science and serves more than 11,000 members in more than 80 countries. With a range of programs and services for individuals, departments, and institutions, APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors within and outside academe to deepen our understanding of politics, democracy, and citizenship throughout the world.

WSJ editors bury Hegseth for bizarrely offensive 'weirdo' speech: 'Has he met anyone?'

Matthew Chapman
October 1, 2026 

RAW STORY


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Department of Defense's FY27 budget request on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz


The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board had scorn for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's bizarre speech boasting about how his military only had "warriors," rather than "beardos," "weirdos," or slurs for transgender people.

Hegseth, wrote the board, "rolled out several good U.S. military initiatives on Wednesday, and usually the purpose of big speeches is to persuade the public of worthy ideas. Yet Mr. Hegseth seems determined to shrink his support with gratuitous potshots, and that bears on whether the Administration can boost recruitment or confront new technology in warfare."

Many of the things Hegseth talked about are decent, the board wrote, like a program for recruiting officers out of schools — even if the focus is intensely on right-wing schools like Liberty University and Hillsdale College — as well as plans to establish a four-star command for autonomous weaponry.

However, the board said, Hegseth "couldn’t resist his usual polarizing attack routine against all and sundry, and he even accused the press of 'treason' for publishing what’s leaking out of the secretary’s shop. The most remembered line of the speech will be Mr. Hegseth’s declaration that the U.S. military no longer abides 'beardos' or 'weirdos.' As a practical matter, has he met anyone in defense technology lately?"

The fact is, said the board, "voters wanted the Trump Administration to restore and protect the military’s meritocracy, after race and identity excesses in the Biden Administration," something Hegseth promises to do, but now "his shoot-first firings of general officers have exasperated even some Republican Members of Congress, and the public is losing confidence in the project as it descends into debates about testosterone levels."

Ultimately, the board concluded, "Mr. Hegseth relishes attacking opponents, and even sometimes allies, as if he’s running a political campaign. But he’s a cabinet officer who needs allies to achieve his military goals."

Hegseth mocked for 'not achieving full extension' after speech about troop fitness

Erik De La Garza
September 30, 2026 

RAW STORY

Kasie Hunt and retired Army Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson on "The Arena." (Screengrab via CNN)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s fixation on military fitness became a punchline when a retired lieutenant general was asked to evaluate his own workout form.

CNN’s Kasie Hunt noted Wednesday that Hegseth has repeatedly stressed physical fitness standards and cited an assessment in The Atlantic that described his push-ups as more like “half-ups.”

Hunt then played several clips of Hegseth working out on camera and asked retired Army Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson whether he was performing the exercises correctly.

“The kettlebell, not so much,” Hunt joked as laughter broke out on the CNN set of her show, “The Arena.”

“The pull-up is like this, not like this. Yes? No?” Hunt asked while mimicking the movement.


Gibson agreed that Hegseth’s form appeared incomplete.


“Well, he’s not achieving full extension of his arms or the joint there,” she said.

But Gibson quickly shifted to a broader point about Hegseth’s emphasis on physical fitness.

“I think every soldier should be fit. That’s really important,” she said. “But his fixation on some specific exercises is not the quality that makes the U.S. military so incredibly lethal and powerful.”


“There are lots of other things that make a good soldier,” Gibson added.

Alarm as Hegseth gives mega MAGA donors a say in future of warfare: 'Feels different now'

Robert Davis
October 1, 2026 
RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shakes hands with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff US Air Force General Dan Caine as he returns to his seat after his remarks at a ceremony in remembrance of US military prisoners of war and those missing in action (POW/MIA) at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., US, September 18, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth alarmed some analysts Thursday after he announced he was inviting a few private citizens to collaborate with the Defense Department on the future of warfare.

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, and Palmer Luckey, founder of drone company Anduril, have been given advisory roles in a Pentagon project about the future of war, The Guardian reported. The project, known as “Project Meridian," seeks to develop new weapons of war for different terrain ranging from outer space to subterranean.

The inclusion of private citizens in defense contracting is nothing new, but Brendan Glavin at Open Secrets noted in the report that the motley crew Hegseth has gathered raises some important questions.

“Bringing major industry players into these types of positions at the Pentagon is not something new, but what feels different now is the substantial financial support these two have, and continue to, deliver for the Republican Party,” Glavin told The Guardian.

Musk was one of the largest donors to President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, spending an estimated $250 million to help elect the president. Musk's companies have also been deeply wedded to some of the Trump administration's pet projects, such as the Department of Government Efficiency and the so-called "golden dome" missile defense project.

Luckey's company is also supported by the venture capital firm run by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to the report.

Luckey has also been dubbed the "godfather of Republican fundraising on the West Coast," according to the report.

"Invitations to political fundraisers obtained by the Guardian show Luckey hosted and co-hosted events for candidates from Trump himself to Ken Calvert, Rick Scott, Mehmet Oz, Ted Cruz and others. The most recent event was on 22 August, where he and his wife co-hosted a $50,000-a-head effort to 'Keep the Senate,' and listing guests John Thune of South Dakota, Mike Rogers of Michigan, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Jon Husted of Ohio," the report reads in part.

‘Best Minds’? Hegseth Taps Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich to Lead ‘Future of Warfare’ Project

“A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military,” said one observer. “What could possibly go wrong?”

Palmer Luckey (left), Newt Gingrich (center), and Elon Musk (right) look on during US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “State of the Force” speech—in which the trio was announced as leaders of the “future of warfare” initiative—at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia on September 30, 2026.
(Photo by Sean Parnell/X)

Brett Wilkins
Sep 30, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that three men—none of whom have served in the military and two who make billions of dollars from it—will help lead a new Pentagon project on the “future of warfare,” even as he moves to eliminate hundreds of senior armed service leadership position, including many generals and admirals.

Hegseth unveiled Project Meridian during his “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. The 120-day initiative will examine emerging technologies that the Department of Defense believes will be critical in future warfare.

“America’s best minds” will be brought together to “reimagine what warfare will look like in the future,” Hegseth said.

To that end, the defense secretary said that “Project Meridian will be co-led by three of our nation’s best minds, Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich.”




Musk, the world’s wealthiest human, is already deeply involved in US national security infrastructure through SpaceX—the recipient of billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts—and other businesses. He was previously part of the administration as the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.

Luckey, who like Musk is a major Trump donor, is the co-founder of defense technology company Anduril Industries. Last year, he said that Anduril planned to produce “large numbers” of cruise missiles, fighter jets, and other artificial intelligence-powered weapons systems.

“If we have to fight Iran, and China, and Russia all at the same time, we are screwed,” Luckey said in pushing for more arms production.

Gingrich is a former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives who had been pushing for war with Iran since at least 2005. Like President Donald Trump, he has been accused of dodging the draft during the Vietnam War by receiving numerous deferments; in Trump’s case for bone spurs, and for Gingrich because he was a student and a father.

“Those three great Americans are going to be joined by a team of senior leaders, hand-picked private sector leaders, and subject matter experts from across our nation’s unmatched innovation, academic, and policy ecosystems,” said Hegseth—whose Senate confirmation last year was so contentious due to concerns about him being unfit for office that it required a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance.

The defense secretary also announced the creation of an Autonomous Warfare Command—or Autowarcom—“a new four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force.”

The appointments come as Hegseth simultaneously pursues a major reduction in the military’s senior leadership. He announced Wednesday that the Pentagon would eliminate 20% of its roughly 800 general and admiral positions by January—doubling a previously announced 10% reduction. Hegseth described the cuts as necessary to eliminate “redundant force structure” and “unnecessary bureaucratic layers.”

The reductions follow the removal or early departure of more than two dozen senior military and civilian defense officials since Hegseth became defense secretary.

The contrast has drawn criticism from lawmakers and military observers, who expressed alarm at the prospect of removing experienced officers while handing an influential role in planning future war to warfare technology executives and a hawkish former lawmaker who is no longer accountable to the public.

“Interesting. A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military,” NewBlue USA executive Marty Taylor said on social media. “What could possibly go wrong?”

Patriotic Cowboys ‘R Us


Warfighter-obsessed Pete Kegsbreath
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Abby Zimet
Oct 02, 2026
FURTHER 

COMMON DREAMS

Sidestepping his debacle of a war, “smug pathetic little man,” warfighter fetishist and Gen.-Patton-cosplaying clown Pete Hegseth just gave a blustering speech before troops In a “hyper-macho freak show” to announce he’s cutting forces, starting several senseless new programs, and proclaiming, “We are no longer the woke (or) weak department...No fatties, trannies, beardos, weirdos, wimps, radicals. Just warriors.” Appalled consensus on the yahoo “turning the military into a frat house”: “What a dick.”

Perhaps due to his low-rent credentials as a weekend TV host at Fox - and a history of drunkenness, adultery, sexual assault and on-the-job incompetence so sordid he needed JD’s tie-breaking vote to get his job - Hegseth has built a sloppy, fragile “Department of Defensiveness” focused on shaping a narrative and persona to his liking - one based on paranoia, distrust, dysfunction, lies and frequent purges of those deemed disloyal. From his make-up studio to his press strictures to his blunders - Signalgate, the war, its first day’s war crimes - Pete’s spent an inordinate amount of time covering his ass and overcompensating for his failures. “He’s just a true believer in way over his head, the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect,” said one DOD employee. “Generally, we consider him a joke, a deeply unqualified clown.”

Still, with men reportedly fleeing MAGA, their need to “pump up that masculine animus” is well-served by Pete’s juvenile, chest-pounding, lethality-obsessed focus on testosterone in the name of a “High-T Department of War” that has “nothing to do with science and everything to do with regressive ideas of what masculinity is.” The same idiocy fuels all the culture war malevolence: Banning books, gutting DEI initiatives - “Diversity is not our strength” - blocking promotions for women and Blacks, a “no more dudes and dresses” transphobia, and ending tenure for civilian professors at military academies ‘cause who needs to protect independent thinkers, scholars, leaders, experts from “the tyranny of a government that actively hates its critics,” the “mindset of someone who has learned nothing (from) American military failures.”

And so to another cringey, Strangelovian “State of the Force Address,” which was not a thing until a TV bobblehead took over the military and turned it into bumbling amateur-hour theater. Last year, he summoned nearly 800 generals, admirals, advisors from around the world, all smarter and higher-ranking than him, to rant about beards and “fat troops,” tell them they “kill people and break things for a living,” and prattle about a 10% cut in their numbers by “removing redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership.” When he paused for applause, there was only deep silence. Maybe because a Joint Chiefs chairman, two service chiefs, two intelligence directors, several generals and the better part of the Army’s senior leadership “were told to run faster by a weekend television host.”

On Wednesday, he gathered about 600 officers and enlisted members, again at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia, for another speech. In the weeks leading up to his latest dash of show business, The Wall Street Journal reported, he emailed commanders asking them to nominate troops to attend. They had to “fit certain physical standards,” he wrote, to have the proper height/weight ratio, with “impeccable grooming: ”I want central casting.“ If they were hot enough, he added, as a bonus some would have ”the opportunity“ to join him in a hot and sweaty dawn work-out at the Pentagon. Totally normal! And luckily, a camera crew was there to follow them on a chanting, banner-bearing run through D.C. To make them look even cooler, he gave them all t-shirts that read, ”This Is War.“ Or at least off-off Broadway.



Later, before a giant American flag, he dropped the hammer in a campy speech many compared to SNL’s Colin Jost doing Pete Hegseth, or Tom Cruise’s braying misogynist in Magnolia, or George C. Scott’s Gen. Patton “minus the inspiration.” Under his “less generals, more GIs” mandate - though it’s “fewer” not less - he said he was doubling the previous cut of 10% of high-ranking personnel to 20% with, wrote Tom Wellborn, “the confidence of a man who has looked at the most powerful armed force in the world and concluded its central weakness was the number of people in it who outrank a major,” what he was. Months into a disastrous war, “That is the force Pete Hegseth has built by subtraction. What it has lost is (what) a general is for, which is to be the person in the room who says no, and (he) has made sure, one firing at a time, there is nobody left in the room to say it.”

“The media calls that a purge,” blustered Hegseth, evidently expecting criticism. “I call it accountability. As usual, what the media levels as an accusation, I wear as an accomplishment.” He haughtily went on to “lay it out simply for the anti-American losers in our media...We are no longer the woke department, or the weak department. Simple translation? No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals. Just warriors.” On coverage of the war and eight attempted suicides on the USS Lincoln, he slammed “disingenuous headlines about deployment lengths, false claims of low troop morale or flat-out propaganda as if it’s written by our adversaries.” “The information space is a battle space,” he said. “The ideological clowns are out. The patriotic cowboys are in.” Smirking, he added,.“With testosterone testing on top.” Jesus, dude.

He also announced several new programs with fancy warlike names like Fortress America and Autonomous War Command or AutoWarCom, a “four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities,” and “The Next Great American Base,” the first new military base in 40 years, with all 50 states “invited to bid for it like an Amazon headquarters,” and “America’s Corps of Cadets, creating new college partnerships with right-wing Liberty University and Hillsdale College, plus Louisiana State, Mississippi, Tuskegee Universities, to increase the number of ”patriotic leaders of character“ and counter ”anti-American, DEI-worshiping woke factories,“ aka the Ivy League schools Hegseth attended.

There’s the bonkers Project Meridian to study “the future of warfare,” headed by “three of our nation’s best minds” - two tech fat cats and one 83-year-old MAGA hawk - none of whom have served in the military, two of whom have made fortunes from it. Cue Elon Musk, a gonzo rocket salesman with billions in Pentagon contracts, GOP pol Newt Gingrich, who got almost as many deferments as Trump during the Vietnam War, and Palmer Luckey, MAGA donor, self-proclaimed “radical Zionist” and founder of tech company Anduril - “three great Americans to help plan the next war with three people who have never been in one,” what could possibly go wrong?“ From a military Reddit: ”Is this real?“, ”Yes master code-monkey, infosec ninja, and tech infrastructure guru Newt Gingrich age 83. Our enemies are so fuct bro!“ and ”Oh fuck this fucking Nazi-loving fuck outta here.“

There’s a new Office of Religious Affairs for a DOD “putting on the full armor of God” to “strengthen the moral, ethical and spiritual readiness of our warfighters,” aka “do the Lord’s work to improve smiting capacity,” because, “while we wage physical war, the real battle is spiritual.” (Maybe why the Pentagon’s covering up not-real casualties?) It’s “voluntary,” which skeptics say is akin to being “voluntold” to do things. Finally, as a party favor, troops were given a new 144-page “field manual” of transcripts of Hegseth speeches. Its forward is by Trump, in classic Trumpese. “As your Commander-in-Chief, I will not ask you to fight dumb Wars,” it reads. “I will unleash you to be violent, lethal and unstoppable - and I will always have your back. Godspeed, Great Warriors. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

 YouTubewww.youtube.com

Along with other regime Nazis, crackpots and fools, theories abound as to what the fuck is wrong with Pete Hegseth. Many argue he’s afflicted with the common sickness of countless, soulless, mediocre white men who know, deep inside, they have risen further than they deserve to. Hence, the bottomless need to be subservient to a monster like Trump (who is too mad to know that) to maintain their place and value in a white guy patriarchy, to always understand “who they get to abuse, and who they are supposed to take abuse from,” and to remain within that vaunted structure, the only one where they have power and respect, by continuing to rule over those they’ve been taught are beneath them. It’s also why, conversely, they freak out when their vital slot is threatened: See Hegseth’s frantic lie detectors at any sign of leaking, mocking, saying no.

Hegseth seems particularly despised by Americans, many of whom eagerly await his war crimes trial, his impeachment,, his rapturing - hopefully first in line, though maybe behind Goebbels/Miller. The concrete damage done by his legacy - the calamitous war, hollowing of the military’s promotion chain, lethality-tinged dumbing down of its intellectual infrastructure and exploitation of those serving - will presumably take years to repair. But people hate him just as much for his personal failings: his gross unfitness and incompetence, his swaggering “Jr High Machismo,” the Nazi-adjacent arrogance of “this nose-powdering drunk,” the lying, preening chutzpah of the military’s worst-ever leader consistently “acting like a 19-year-old edgelord loser,” like “a dipshit,” “an asshole,” “an absolute tinydick in every goddamn way.”

Several truly obnoxious moments of his state-of-the-empire speech ignited that animus. His attack on media who do their job and tell the truth about him began with a lame nod to the First Amendment - “A free press is of course important” - that veered to a diatribe: “But partisan activism that intentionally smears the troops and the historic mission they are undertaking (is) anti-American. It’s sick. It’s a national betrayal. It’s treason, actually...It has to be said.” Umm, not, said America: “Secretary of Dewar’s doesn’t get he’s the only one getting smeared, not the troops,” “I love the free press until they say words I don’t like in which case I call them traitors and want them killed,” “Bro, they’re not shitting on the troops, just you,” “It’s called free speech, fucknut. The thing your troops are supposed to defend,” “The mission of our military has become historic only in the degree of its absurdity.”

Then there was a pitiful, fitness-instructor-like defense of his bullying of troops: “Telling someone to get in shape or shave or fix their uniform or start busting their ass - that’s not discrimination. That’s leadership.” Fact: Actually, it’s neither. It’s stupid, shallow, beside-the-point bullying. Many argued it’s just “being a dick” and “an asshole.” That he should “tell his boss to get in shape and start busting his ass.” That it’s weird how he “doesn’t get to the part where he actually discriminates.” That leadership is “inspiring, being an example, not getting your nation into an illegal war, losing it in days and committing war crimes.” That he’s “a drunk, vain, adulterous rapist with ridiculous sideburns.” That it’s “stunning in an awful way a man his age is so immature.” That “this motherfucker is waaay out over his skis.” And damn, more fucking patriotic cowboys is the last thing we need thanks.

How Pete's (deservedly) doingScreengrab from CNN

Trump, AI CEOs sign voluntary safety pact, back data center expansion

By Courtney Rozen and Steve Holland
Tue, September 29, 2026 

US House Speaker Mike Johnson, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, SpacexAI Founder and CEO Elon Musk, Nvidia President and CEO Jensen Huang, and CEO of AMD Lisa Su attend a luncheon for tech leaders hosted by US President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., US, September 29, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

US President Donald Trump, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Nvidia President and CEO Jensen Huang, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, SpacexAI Founder and CEO Elon Musk, and other tech leaders, speaks to the media at the White House driveway following a luncheon for tech leaders in the East Room, in Washington, D.C., US, September 29, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, SpacexAI Founder and CEO Elon Musk, and Nvidia President and CEO Jensen Huang, sit by US President Donald Trump as he hosts a luncheon for tech leaders in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., US, September 29, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

US President Donald Trump, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, SpacexAI Founder and CEO Elon Musk, and Nvidia President and CEO Jensen Huang, attend a luncheon for tech leaders in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., US, September 29, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst


Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, next to US President Donald Trump, speaks to the media at the White House driveway following a luncheon for tech leaders in the East Room, in Washington, D.C., US, September 29, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

US President Donald Trump and SpacexAI Founder and CEO Elon Musk speak to the media at the White House driveway following a luncheon for tech leaders in the East Room, in Washington, D.C., US, September 29, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

WASHINGTON, Sept 29 (Reuters) - US President Donald Trump on Tuesday said tech executives agreed to establish voluntary standards for AI and reiterated his support for rapid expansion of data centers, as concerns mount over AI safety and the industry's growing footprint in communities.

Trump made the comments ‌after meeting with tech executives at the White House. The companies agreed to work with "independent auditors" to assess whether AI systems are working as their designers intended, ‌according to a copy of the agreement posted by Trump on his social media platform. The companies also said they would work to ensure their AI tools do not "hack or access technical systems in unintended ways."

The administration ​faces increasing scrutiny over risks posed by advanced AI, after OpenAI and Anthropic reported their AI agents had gone rogue and hacked into other companies' systems.

Data centers, which provide the computing power to train and run AI models, have drawn opposition in communities nationwide over concerns about electricity demand, utility costs and other local impacts. The backlash poses a political challenge for Republicans heading into the US midterm elections on November 3.

"It's almost like a constitution, in a way," Trump said, referring to the agreement between the companies. "And the biggest people in the world signed that, and ‌I signed it as president. And it really is a ⁠form of protection."

What began as a closed-door lunch with technology executives spilled into public view when Trump joined House Speaker Mike Johnson and a lineup of CEOs on the White House driveway, an area rarely used by the president to speak to journalists. He took questions from ⁠reporters for about 30 minutes on AI safety and other topics with the CEOs standing behind him.

The unusual scene came as pressure has mounted on the administration to address the risks and rapid spread of AI, and underscored the alliance Trump has cultivated with leaders of the tech industry. Executives at the meeting included OpenAI's Greg Brockman, Anthropic's Dario Amodei, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai and Nvidia's Jensen ​Huang.

Zuckerberg, ​pulled forward from the crowd of billionaire executives by Trump to speak, said the companies agreed to ​develop "robust internal controls" for their AI systems. Trump said he is considering ‌setting up a 10-person board to police the safety of AI tools. He did not specify potential members of that group. He added he would soon name a new official to lead White House policies on AI.

DOUBLES DOWN ON DATA CENTERS

Asked whether he was concerned that his support for data centers could hurt Republicans in November, Trump said tech companies would work to make communities "happy" about the construction of data centers.

"These big, powerful, very rich, very smart companies are going to be making massive contributions to communities," Trump later told reporters gathered on the White House driveway, surrounded by the company executives.

But the companies have come under fire for not doing enough to make AI safer. A nationwide Reuters/Ipsos poll from September 17 ‌to 20 shows some 73% of respondents worry that AI companies haven't done enough to prevent AI ​from causing serious harm to society, and 55% of people said it would be good to slow AI ​development.

AI company executives and investors were among the largest individual donors in 2025 ​to MAGA Inc., a political action committee aligned with the president. OpenAI's Brockman and his wife, Anna Brockman, gave a combined $25 million to the committee ‌in 2025, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Trump met with the ​CEOs the same day his aides announced a ​new AI tool that they said will make it easier for the public to use government services.

Silicon Valley executives attended an event launching the new tool, including Meta's Dina Powell McCormick and Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire. Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia led the design of the new tool. Silicon Valley companies Google, SpaceX, Meta and 8VC were ​listed in the launch event's program as sponsors.

Trump at the launch ‌event said the AI tool could not "in theory, be hacked into" by bad actors. He did not provide evidence.

Trump on Tuesday also directed government agencies to ​use the words "super intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" when referring to the technology.

(Reporting by Courtney Rozen and Steve Holland in Washington; additional reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt; ​Editing by Chris Sanders, Colleen Jenkins, David Gaffen, Nick Zieminski, Cynthia Osterman and David Gregorio)

Bill Gates says the future of AI will happen in 2 phases and lead to 'an era of abundance'

Business Insider
Lauren Edmonds
Sun, September 27, 2026 


Bill Gates said in an interview on "Meet the Press" that AI will have two phases.


He said we're now in an adjustment period during which AI's full potential isn't attainable.


Gates called phase two, which combines AI and humanoid robots, the "era of abundance."

Bill Gates says there's a light at the end of the tunnel for AI, so long as humanity can wait a couple of decades.

During an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," the billionaire businessman said AI will evolve in two phases. He told host Kristen Welker that humanity is entering the first phase, in which AI has the potential to solve problems like the high cost of living and expensive healthcare, but can't do so yet.

"Yet it will be changing the job market and potentially empowering criminals if we don't have the right safeguards, so you have a period that's probably 20 years long where you have this adjustment," Gates said.

Phase two is when humanity will begin to reap the benefits of AI.

"Once you get through that, then a combination of humanoid robots and AIs will provide. Building houses, growing food, a lot of things," Gates said. "You could call it an era of abundance."

He told "Meet the Press" that humanity will still face challenges, like finding a sense of purpose and deciding how to spend newly acquired free time, but large-scale shortages won't bog us down.

"That's for the younger generation to figure out what that looks like. My focus is can we get through this period of turmoil without too much damage," Gates said.

Tech leaders have promoted AI as the next technological frontier and a necessary step in advancing humanity. They've said AI could lead to medical breakthroughs, boost productivity, revitalize economies, make essential goods affordable, and handle mundane tasks, giving humans more free time.

Critics, on the other hand, have expressed concerns that AI will cause job losses, worsen the environment, strain utility grids, and pose the risk of copyright infringement by trained AI models. They've also pointed toward privacy and cybersecurity issues, which have gained attention in recent weeks due to a spattering of AI-linked hacks.

An OpenAI agent escaped its system and hacked another AI company, Hugging Face, in July. Earlier this month, a research team at an AI startup said it used Anthropic's Claude to hack into OpenAI's codebase. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Google's Gemini had hacked three companies this spring. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said an OpenAI agent gained unauthorized access to an Australian government website this summer. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called on the industry to slow the pace of AI development this month, rallying AI leaders such as Sam Altman and Elon Musk.

On his part, Gates has advocated for AI guardrails and expressed concerns over how the technology could be misused. During the "Meet the Press" interview, Gates said AI is powerful enough to "drive events that cause a billion deaths."

"You need law enforcement and the politicians to get into the discussion about what safeguards and monitoring look like," Gates said. "That has to be a required thing, and it will be a little bit of overhead for the industry, but not a dramatic slowing of what they're doing."

While Gates and other industry leaders look toward the US government to set regulations, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has a different take.

"It's very interesting that they talk about these issues, about how scared they are about potentially where the future is, and maybe they want to do a pause," Michael Kratsios told Fox News Sunday this month. "Our position is, if you do believe that you're developing a technology that is unsafe or you don't want it out into the world, you can just stop it."

OpenAI halts release of latest model over safety concerns

The Independent
Vishwam Sankaran
Mon, September 28, 2026 


OpenAI halts release of latest model over safety concerns

OpenAI is delaying the release of its latest artificial intelligence model after it showed "higher levels of deception" than its predecessors, amid a growing push within the industry to slow down the advance of AI.

The decision comes as AI researchers worldwide call for slowing down the development of autonomous systems until safety measures can catch up.

OpenAI's head of safety systems, Saachi Jain, told The Wall Street Journal that the model GPT-6.1 Astra, slated for an October release, failed to meet the company's standards for assessing whether it follows human intent.

"We have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment ... It didn't quite meet the bar", Ms Jain said.

She said the AI model had issues with "scope authorisation", attempting to use external tools or services in situations when it could be unsafe.

Ms Jain's announcement comes amid industrywide reports of AI systems going rogue.

OpenAI said last week that it would resume training its most advanced models "only when we are confident that we have additional safeguards" after it revealed in a report that its AI agents exceeded their instructions.

Several AI firms also admitted over the Summer that their experimental models hacked other firms, and a researcher who quit working with Anthropic warned that AI could "kill us all by the end of the decade".

"We must slow the pace at which we improve ⁠the capabilities of AI models," Anthropic chief Dario Amodei said in the wake of the growing panic.

He pointed out that AI agents were found increasingly collaborating with each other and hacking into other systems, hinting this could get worse.

"Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it's my worry that in ‌6-12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage," Mr Amodei wrote in a long essay.

(Reuters)

He warned in Anthropic's Initial Public Offering (IPO) prospectus that AI models could "conceal or manipulate information", or exhibit "self-preserving" behaviours such as attempts to "resist shutdown".

Microsoft's Bill Gates also warned that AI is "powerful enough to drive events that cause a billion deaths".

OpenAI's Sam Altman and xAI's Elon Musk also concurred, joining the call to "slow the pace" of AI development.

On Tuesday, Mr Altman is scheduled to deliver a keynote address at OpenAI's annual conference for software developers in San Francisco, while the company's president Greg Brockman is expected to attend the White House's event.

OpenAI's Altman Wants to Avoid Another Industrial Revolution, AI Overlords

PC Mag
Michael Kan
Tue, September 29, 2026


sam altman - Credit: PCMag/Michael Kan

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says he's trying to avoid a repeat of the downsides of the Industrial Revolution, even as his technology sparks fears about job loss and societal destruction.

"We really want people to stay at the center of the story, and to make decisions about the future," he said during a Q&A session with journalists at today's DevDay in San Francisco.

Some insiders, including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, have compared the rise of AI to a new Industrial Revolution, an era of major manufacturing and scientific advancement during the 18th and 19th centuries. But that era also led to human labor and environmental exploitation.

At a Tuesday White House event, President Trump said of AI: "I will never stifle the growth of a technology that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution." During the Q&A, Altman agreed that AI could be bigger "in terms of impact to the world," but he added, "I don't think the Industrial Revolution was all good. And I don't think the purpose of this technology is just sort of turn the economic crank faster and faster for the sake of AI."

As one of the leading AI providers, OpenAI holds major influence over the technology. But Altman emphasized that his company remains committed to expanding access to leading AI tools for all people. ChatGPT now has over 1.2 billion weekly users, and a key focus is "empowering" people to use AI to create new businesses or uncover scientific breakthroughs, rather than having AI automate facets of society.

Altman also wants to avoid using the technology to create a sci-fi-like AI overlord. "To kind of automate everything and have one single AI, or AI company, that just sort of runs this economic engine and decides how [many] resources to hand out to people based on something like a function it decides on? I think we should learn from the mistakes of the Industrial Revolution, and we should be more like the Renaissance," he said.

On the AI regulation front, Altman said he's trying to take a middle ground between the two extremes in the ongoing debate: those who want to charge ahead, believing nothing will go wrong with AI, and those who've been calling for a full stop, fearing the technology will eventually doom humanity.

"I don't like either one of those things," he said. "I think that both of them sort of assume that people don't have much agency, or whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and we can't avoid bad stuff. I think as an industry we need to navigate this centrist half."

He added that both extremes are about a "power imbalance," but threaten to block what makes society "robust and resilient," adding, "My hope is that as an industry, we can come together and say we need to go down this middle path."

At today's DevDay, OpenAI launched dots, a personal AI agent that can work 24/7 on various tasks, which is bound to compete with Meta's Muse. For now, dots is only available for subscribers to OpenAI's pricey Pro, Premium Business, and Enterprise plans. But in the Q&A, Altman confirmed the goal is to eventually offer dots to consumers.

He also hinted that Dot will also become part of OpenAI's hardware plans, but declined to elaborate. In the meantime, rival Meta is preparing to release a Tamagotchi-like hardware device, dubbed Muse Charm, that will offer instant access to a user's AI agent.

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, PCMag's parent company, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in April 2025, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.


OpenAI scraps rollout of new model over safety concerns

BBC
Osmond Chia - Business reporter; 

Liv McMahon - Technology reporter
Tue, September 29, 2026 

OpenAI has announced it will not release its latest AI model due to safety concerns.

Its GPT-6.1 Astra system, which performs tasks like browsing the web and using apps by itself, "didn't quite meet the bar" of the company's standards, according to Saachi Jain, head of safety systems at OpenAI.

The ChatGPT-maker also issued an update on incidents that occurred in June but were not made public until last week, where its models accessed Australian government websites and systems without authorisation.

It comes as breaches by major AI firms' models intensify the debate about risks posed by the tech - with Anthropic underlining its concerns AI might threaten humanity as it prepares to go public.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that the AI developer - which makes ChatGPT-rival Claude - plans to warn potential investors in its Initial Public Offering (IPO) that the tech may pose "catastrophic or existential risks to humanity", according to a prospectus it has seen.

Despite the stark warnings, the company is expected to become one of the most valuable in the world when it goes public.

"I think it's kind of crazy that companies are continuing to push forward with developing these capabilities when we've already seen over the last couple of months of incidents that they're nowhere near safe and controlled enough", said Jess Whittlestone, a senior advisor on AI policy for the Centre for Long-Term Resilience think tank.

Top AI leaders including Anthropic boss Dario Amodei and OpenAI's Sam Altman have urged the industry to slow the pace of development.

Why are there concerns AI could threaten humanity, and how real are they?
Growing safety questions

OpenAI's decision, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, is a rare instance of a major AI developer pulling a new release over safety concerns.

The model fell short in terms of "staying within scope and authorisation and how it communicates back to the user about the type of work it's done," Jain said.

"We want to make sure our model development is safe no matter whether that's in the company, or when we ship it to users. But when we ship it to users, we have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment," she added.

The flagship GPT-6 Astra agentic model was released in September and specialises in complex reasoning and executing tasks autonomously. OpenAI said it was the result of "years of research and big bets".

OpenAI is set to hold its annual DevDay developer conference in San Francisco on Tuesday, where it is expected to make several announcements. It is unclear if a new version of Astra will be among them.

The company's security controls have come under intense scrutiny after several high-profile incidents involving its technology.

It is not the first time a large AI developer has pulled or held back a new model.

Earlier this year, Anthropic said it would not publicly release a powerful Claude model, Mythos, because it was too good at finding dormant software bugs.

The company released a version of that model to the public several months later.

OpenAI meanwhile said in 2019 it would not be "too dangerous" to release one of its GPT models, now used to power its tools like ChatGPT.

The firm's decision to not publicly release the latest version of Astra was "a welcome sign that they are taking safety concerns seriously," said Prof Tony Cohn, foundational models theme lead at the Alan Turing Institute.

But he added that "safety should not be left purely in the hands of the developers: it should also be monitored and verified through independent government-approved regulators".

Prof Gina Neff, of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge, said OpenAI's announcement showed "how much more the company needs to do to make their AI products safe".

She told the BBC it was "critical" to have independent tests of AI models by labs like the UK's AI Security Institute - which evaluates frontier systems on a voluntary basis - because "these companies have proven that we can't rely solely on them for our safety"

Australia hacks

Last week, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that a rogue OpenAI agent had hacked into government websites and systems in June in what experts said was the first known case of its kind in the world.

Albanese criticised OpenAI for notifying the Australian government through a generic email address rather than making direct contact with officials.

OpenAI said in a statement on Tuesday that it was sorry for the incident and that it "should have handled our response better".

Services Australia, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the Victorian Department of Health and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare were all affected, OpenAI clarified.

The firm said it launched investigations as soon as it became aware of issues in mid-August and notified the affected organisations between 10 and 24 September.

"Our aim was to give affected agencies a detailed account once our investigation was complete," OpenAI said, adding that it should have shared early findings more promptly and kept Australian authorities updated.

OpenAI added that it will develop "practical approaches" to how developers and governments identify and disclose future AI incidents.

The company will fund cyber security measures, offer dedicated support to impacted agencies and set up a taskforce to manage the risks from increasingly advanced AI agents.

It also said a top OpenAI executive would attend a Joint Select Committee hearing on AI in Australia on 6 October.

In July, OpenAI said its AI systems had accessed the internet and hacked into open-source developer hub Hugging Face, prompting researchers and officials to call for tighter controls over the technology.

On Monday, chip giant Nvidia released a set of software safety tools for autonomous AI platforms - called agents - that it said could have prevented the Hugging Face hack.

One of the new tools uses hardware features in Nvidia's chips to contain agents.

Nvidia boss Jensen Huang has largely dismissed calls for tighter AI regulations, arguing that rogue agents are an engineering problem that can be solved.

Nvidia agreed to buy Hugging Face for $12.9bn (£9.74bn) earlier this month.

Pope Leo XIV is among figures who have expressed scepticism over Nvidia boss Jensen Huang's views [EPA]

The pontiff, who said on Monday during a visit to France that AI "should be taken seriously", added he had read that Huang had suggested there could be a way to insert guardrails ‌into certain AI models.

"He's the same one, however, ⁠that says there should ⁠be no limits placed and no government regulation," said the Pope.

Nvidia declined to comment on the record.

US President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are set to host tech executives at the White House later on Tuesday to discuss regulations around AI.

Trump has downplayed concerns about AI's risks as a "hoax", arguing that the US has sufficient laws in place and that the only "guardrails" the technology needs is a "strong and smart" president.

[BBC]

OpenAI pulls plug on ‘untrustworthy’ new AI model as tech doomerism mounts: report

NY Post
Ariel Zilber
Mon, September 28, 2026 

OpenAI reportedly slammed the brakes on releasing its next-gen AI model after finding it was not trustworthy – the latest example of the artificial intelligence industry proceeding with caution amid growing doomer warnings about the tech.

The company scrapped an October release for the product, known as GPT-6.1 Astra, after researchers found it wasn't always forthright when it came to telling users what it was doing during internal testing, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

On top of that, the mischievous model was reportedly prone to push ahead on tasks without human authorization and sometimes tried to use potentially unsafe tools and services.

OpenAI reportedly canceled the October release of its latest next-gen AI model after finding it "untrustworthy." REUTERS

OpenAI's head of safety systems Saachi Jain told the paper that GPT-6.1 Astra wasn't reliable enough to release safely.

GPT-6.1 Astra would have been better than previous OpenAI products at hard challenges performed without human assistance, along with writing, according to the Journal.

But among other issues, it fell short when it came to "alignment," a term of art describing how well an AI does what humans want it to do.

"For anything regarding safety and alignment, there's a trade off," Jain told the Journal. "You really do need to find what's the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction."

The jarring disclosure came in the wake of a growing number of reports of AI bots and agents running amok.

OpenAI, Anthropic and other security researchers have been investigating thousands of breaches during both internal and real-world testing in which AI models broke through guardrails and even took part in digital hijackings, Axios reported Saturday.

Last week, OpenAI revealed its bots had tried to hack government and university websites earlier this year without any human instructions.

AI agents from Anthropic, Meta and Google have also hacked into other systems without being prompted by humans, according to reports.

Amid recent reports of AIs gone wild, a growing chorus in Silicon Valley and beyond has been calling for leaders to tap the brakes on developing artificial intelligence.

Both OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic chief Dario Amodei have called for slower progress on AI, while stopping short of demanding a research moratorium.

President Trump has rejected such pleas, saying acting on them would put the US at a competitive disadvantage.

Billionaire investor Peter Thiel recently echoed his remarks, saying over the weekend that pausing progress would lead to a different kind of threat.

"In theory, you could slow it down if you had genuine deep cooperation across the whole world. But I think that would require one-world government with real teeth," he told Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner on a podcast.

"And the sort of classical-liberal part of me thinks that's almost frying pan into fire. It's a cure that's worse than the disease."

OpenAI was scheduled to hold its annual developer conference on Tuesday. The AI giant previously used the event as a forum to show off its latest and greatest models amid its heated competition with Anthropic.