Showing posts sorted by date for query Voice of America. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Voice of America. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, August 13, 2026

 

Kazakh billionaire Turlov bids for presidency of World Chess Federation

Kazakh billionaire Turlov bids for presidency of World Chess Federation
Kazakh billionaire Timur Turlov has been running the local chess federation but after the current president Arkady Dvorkovich was included in the 21st sanction package and suddenly quit, Turlov finds himself as the frontrunner to take over as head of the global chess federation. / bne IntelliNewsFacebook
By Leon Aris in Berlin August 13, 2026

Kazakh billionaire Timur Turlov did not set out to run world chess. In late June the founder of Freedom Holding Corp, the Nasdaq-listed financial services group, agreed to stand as deputy to Arkady Dvorkovich, the International Chess Federation (FIDE) president seeking a third term.

Then on July 23 the EU added Dvorkovich, a former first deputy prime minister in the Russian government, to its 21st sanctions package. Dvorkovich suspended his powers within hours. Within a day the FIDE presidential ticket had reconstituted itself with the top two names exchanged: Turlov for president, and Viswanathan Anand, the five-time world champion who had become interim president, as his deputy.

That is how a 38-year-old billionaire who has been the head of the Kazakh chess association for barely three years became the frontrunner in an election to be decided on September 26, when delegates from nearly 200 national federations gather in Samarkand alongside the Chess Olympiad.

Speaking with IntelliNews by video link from Almaty, Turlov seems less interested in the timetable than in the business case. Chess, he argues, is an undervalued sponsorship market.

"Chess is also a very great club of people," he said. "A lot of chess fans are intellectual people. It's bankers, politicians, business leaders, and different artists.”

Businesses, he added, are "missing a great opportunity for sponsorship. Because with relatively small budgets, you can get a global influence.”

Turlov, who has had a rags-to-riches ride to become Kazakhstan’s wealthiest man, has bought into that thesis heavily. Freedom Holding, of which he owns roughly two-thirds, has spent more than $75mn on the game and puts in about $15mn a year. It funded the 2024 world rapid and blitz championships on Wall Street, backed successive Candidates tournaments, and in April acquired ChessBase, the Hamburg company whose databases have been the sport's professional infrastructure for four decades.

The digital pitch

What he proposes to bring to FIDE is narrower than the sponsorship argument suggests. Professional chess, he says, is governed competently; what neither FIDE nor its members capture is the value that could be created by migrating the game online. He wants to digitise chess completely.

"I think I can help with digitalization, with building a strong digital platform... to be able to regulate this digital growth," he said. Otherwise, "funding for federations never will be secured and never will be sustainable if we will not significantly present online.”

The game has already been popularised by the enormously successful “Queen’s Gambit” Netflix series and made accessible by the very popular chess.com site that is both a place to learn and a platform to compete, but Turlov wants to go further.

Pressed for specifics, he lists CRM systems for each federation, a chess ID so federations can count their players, voluntary accreditation of clubs, calendar tools, and arbiter registries. Then something harder. He wants "a very strong link between online gaming platforms and national federations", he said, "starting from building biometric identification of chess players to maintain integrity of ratings".

Neither that commitment nor the platform architecture appears in the five published pillars of his campaign, launched on August 1 under the motto "Moving Chess Forward. Together.”

·       Global Institution: Build a united, independent, transparent, and respected worldwide chess organization.

·       Digital Infrastructure: Create modern tools to help Member Federations manage tasks and share resources.

·       Financial Strength: Strengthen funds to invest more heavily in global programs, education, and events.

·       Equal Empowerment: Ensure every Member Federation has an equal voice, regardless of size or location.

·       Event Standards: Raise the quality of FIDE tournaments, increase prize funds, and expand player opportunities.

Nor does the goal he nominates when asked what would define a first term.

"We need to become an Olympic sport and I think we have a very good chance to become an Olympic sport," he said. "It's not fast, but at least I want to come as close as possible to this moment in the next four years.”

The route runs through continental competition: "We need recognition from international competition like Asian Games, European Games, Africa Games.”

The obstacle, he believes, is not participation but legibility. "Hundreds of millions of people play chess in the world and it's enough for the Olympics for sure," he said. Missing is a broadcast product non-players can follow — a problem he thinks artificial intelligence can solve. "Sometimes to really understand all beauty you need to be at least a master to understand the beauty of grandmasters," he told IntelliNews. "With the help of AI... we can build broadcasts more attractive for the general public.”

His reference point throughout is the Freedom super-app, his company’s flagship product, which bundles banking, insurance, travel and groceries for more than 11mn customers, and which he describes in the same terms he uses for governing a sport.

"Each big organization is kind of similar sometimes even to a small country," he said. In chess, that means embedding the game in other people's platforms. Asked, half in jest, whether customers might one day solve chess puzzles to pay for things, he did not hesitate. "Yes, why not? You can give some gigabytes for solving puzzles, some extra internet, some extra engagement.”

He would supply federations with a software development kit for such deals and warns those that ignore digital: "They will lose authority over this game.”

Continuity, and its price

Turlov's rivals for FIDE’s top job — the German entrepreneurs Jan Henric Buettner, running with Malcolm Pein, and Wadim Rosenstein, running with Gordon Tang — are campaigning against precisely what he represents. His is substantially the Dvorkovich machine with the names reordered, and he does not disown it: his letter to member federations offered "continuity with a new level of practical effectiveness".

Asked to assess his predecessor, he was warm. "I still truly believe that Arkady did a great job... He spent most of his life in the airplane," he said. "It will be, in my opinion, very unfair to not appreciate what was done.”

The criticism is oblique — "I think there were some limits in collaboration also, especially last four years" — and the gap he identifies is technical: "the biggest sphere for advancement, in my opinion, is, of course, this digital development.”

And then there is the money. Turlov is worth an estimated $7bn and he intends to personally fund some of his prospective projects.

"My key is to provide some financial backstop to FIDE, to make sure that we will be able to plan a longer calendar, for example, for the next two years," he said. "That happens not just because of a lack of professionals. That happens because of a lack of predictability.”

He names two relationships he would try to repair: "We'll still have a great potential to restart some relationship with the Ukraine Federation, for example, with the American Federation.”

The Russia question

Moscow-born, Turlov renounced his Russian citizenship in 2022 and became a Kazakh citizen; Freedom sold its Russian subsidiaries the following year. The Russian Chess Federation, itself suspended, endorsed not him but Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a Russian oligarch and chess fanatic. His first act after being elected President of the Republic of Kalmykia was to make chess a compulsory part of the school curriculum in the region, which he claims increased pupil’s academic performance by 40%. He is also a former president of FIDE, but eventually failed to file his candidature for the job.

Turlov describes himself as a Kazakh but nonetheless expects the association with Russia to stick.

"I regret very much about this situation with Russia," he said. "But it's still extremely difficult to fully distinguish sport from politics.” However, he is specific on one key condition: "I think one of them is very important to stop this war.” Asked directly whether he worries about being characterised as Kremlin-influenced, he did not address the charge.

The race for the presidency has meanwhile turned acrimonious. On August 7 Buettner sent the FIDE Council a cease-and-desist notice alleging federation staff and funds were being used to support Turlov, citing activity in Cape Town, Bucharest and Addis Ababa, and demanding written confirmation of neutrality within seven days. Neither side had responded publicly at the time of writing.

Turlov carries other baggage: Ukraine sanctioned him personally in October 2022, a listing Freedom calls an error, and in March the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued a Wells Notice to the company and to him as chief executive. But no court has ruled against him, he denies any wrongdoing and he has not been sanctioned by either the EU or America.

Bank first, federation second

Turlov’s day job continues, building one of the fastest growing fintech businesses in Central Asia, which is rapidly emerging as an innovative  tech hub. Freedom Holding is already moving out of its traditional stamping ground and has filed a banking application with France's ACPR as well as clearing the purchase of a small Turkish bank "I truly believe that now I will be much more useful for any society and for any country as a businessman," he said. "And frankly, I will be much freer in my decisions.”

His pitch to delegates rests on delivery. "If we're promising something, we are from business, we are not from politics. We know how important it is to deliver what was promised," he said. Being unfamiliar to the chess world he casts as an asset: "I hope that I still will be able to surprise many delegates... Sometimes it's better to talk than not to talk.”

Asked what chess has taught him that he expects to use in Samarkand, he offered something closer to a warning to himself. "In management, especially for organizations like FIDE, your mistakes are usually in relationships with different people," he said. "A lot of chess players actually don't care so much about relationships... But in federation, you need to be focused on relationships. That's all we do.”

"Mistakes could not be just factual," he added. "Mistakes also could be in your relationships. And also if you're tired and sick, so don't clash with your people, with your friends, with your colleagues, with your community.”

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

 


Robert Reich: Stop AI Before It’s Too Late – OpEd


Recent U.S. job losses (23,000 in July) and slowing wage growth, especially in AI-exposed occupations, indicate that artificial intelligence is already contributing to higher unemployment and reduced earnings for millions of workers.

AI is concentrating vast wealth and political power among a small group of executives and investors while imposing heavy environmental costs through energy-intensive data centers and raising serious safety risks, including rogue models and potential bioweapon development.

Given that the known costs and risks currently outweigh broad benefits for most people, the rapid advance of AI should not be treated as inevitable; society has both the right and the responsibility to pause or halt its development to protect jobs, democracy, the climate, and public safety.


I’m going to make a proposal today that’s almost certain to get me consigned to the neo-Luddite dustbin of history.

But first, let me lay out some facts.

Rather than producing jobs, the U.S. economy actually lost 23,000 job in July, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released Friday. In addition, May’s and June’s job numbers were revised downward, showing a combined 103,000 fewer jobs than previously reported.


As if this weren’t bad enough, wage growth has also slowed. Average hourly earnings In July were just 0.1 percent higher than in June. This isn’t just a single month’s slow wage growth, either. Average hourly earnings increased just 3.2 percent over the past year — the lowest annual growth rate in five years.

What’s going on? It’s too early to tell. But evidence is mounting that artificial intelligence is playing a role.

New research by economists at Morgan Stanley shows that the rate of unemployment is half a percentage point higher than it would otherwise be in occupations exposed to AI, which they put at about 30 percent of all employment. The effect is even more dramatic among younger people.

Wage growth in jobs exposed to AI has contracted by 6.7 percent since 2023, according to research by economists Sania Edlich and Apollo Global Management’s Torsten Slok. This has resulted in at least $28 billion in losses for 5.8 million affected workers.

These findings still don’t explain the startling loss of jobs in July or the downward revisions for May and June. There are probably many factors at play. But they suggest that employers may be anticipating they’ll need fewer workers in the future — and won’t need to pay them all that much in order to attract them.


It’s possible that AI may create more jobs over the long term. But as John Maynard Keynes once noted, over the long term we’re all dead.

More than half of Americans surveyed by Reuters/Ipsos in June say they’re worried AI will put someone in their household out of work.

Edlich and Slok write that “the critical policy question is not whether AI will reshape the labor market more broadly, but how quickly, and whether workers will have the support they need when it does.”

As a former secretary of labor who’s kept his eyes focused on the Trump regime, I can assure you workers won’t have the support they need any time soon.

And even if AI begins to generate the productivity bonanza its advocates predict — but hasn’t yet — there’s no reason to assume American workers will see any of the benefits in their paychecks. If you hadn’t noticed, wages have been stuck even as the stock market has roared.

To the contrary, all signs point to vast riches for a few major AI investors and executives while most Americans are left behind.

Wealth inequality is already at record levels, and wealth at the top is quickly morphing into political power.

AI is creating a vast wave of campaign money. OpenAI’s superPAC “Leading the Future” has amassed over $140 million to influence upcoming elections, while Anthropic’s superPAC “Public First Action” isn’t far behind.


As the great jurist Louis Brandeis is reputed to have said, “America has a choice: we can have great wealth in the hands of a few, or we can have a democracy, but we can’t have both.”

AI is pushing us further toward the first option.

Meanwhile, there’s the planet to consider.

Amazon is now investing in a large-scale natural-gas power plant as part of a huge data center in Pecos County, Texas — a facility that could become the largest single source of climate pollution in the United States.

It’s racing to build enough data centers to keep pace with other giant AI corporations and secure the electricity to power them. Amazon’s new gas-burning plant is permitted to release 33 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, regulatory records show, more planet-warming gases than any other power plant in America.

So much for Amazon’s promise to eliminate its planet-warming emissions by 2040 as part of its Climate Pledge. You can bet other giants in the AI race will be turning to natural gas, too.

Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned the Frankenstein monster in the room. A few weeks ago, OpenAI admitted that two of its artificial intelligence models went rogue and successfully hacked into a digital library of AI technology.

The incident, which happened while OpenAI was testing the cybersecurity capabilities of its systems, was the kind of science-fiction nightmare that could soon be a reality. How soon before AI models escape all their cages?

Just last week, scientists published a study documenting how they used A.I. to create new kinds of viruses, raising the frightful possibility that the technology could be used to invent dangerous pathogens.

Lost jobs. Lost wages. Widening inequality. Data centers using up water and electricity and polluting the climate. Vastly more money polluting our politics. Models escaping their cages and hacking into everything, possibly threatening human life on this planet.

Can we pause for a moment and talk about what’s really happening here?

As sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom writes, AI has merged regressive politics with unchecked economic power under the guise of technological innovation.

Far too much money is giving a small group of unelected people extraordinary power to determine our future in ways that are likely to remake — and could possibly destroy — our lives.

We’re watching all of this roll out as if we have no choice, as if it’s inevitable, as if AI is just something we’re going to have to adapt to.


But why should we have to adapt to it, when it is the product of people like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, and Dario Amodei?

Why should we be confined to being spectators at their enormously dangerous game? Why should we have to accept all these hugely negative, potentially life-threatening consequences?

The fact is, we don’t.

Communities across America are organizing against data centers near them. MAGAs and progressives are joining together to say “no” to the noise, higher electricity bills, and water shortages.

Well, then, why can’t we stop the whole damn thing? Why can’t we decide that the incalculable costs and risks of AI aren’t worth the potential benefits to the vast majority of us?

AI proponents argue that stopping or even pausing AI in the United States would risk American industry falling behind competitors overseas.

But if the costs and risks exceed known benefits, why not let China or any other competitor try AI out first? Why should we be the canary in this extraordinarily dangerous coal mine?

Other advocates of AI say we have no right to stop innovation in the free market. That’s baloney. We don’t allow private corporations to come up with new types of nuclear weapons or varieties of cocaine or biological pathogens. We protect the public from certain kinds of innovation.

So let’s protect ourselves here. Stop AI before it’s too late.



This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack


About Robert Reich

Robert B. Reichis Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes atrobertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.
View all posts by Robert Reich →

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

AI is already inside election administration; before it moves deeper into the count, results have to stay verifiable.



Clerk Matthew Sandbar, 34, demonstrates part of the ballot-sorting process to members of the media attending a walkthrough of the Philadelphia Ballot Processing Center used to process the ballots of the 2022 US midterm elections, in Philadelphia on October 27, 2022.
(Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images)

Davis Austria
Aug 12, 2026
Common Dreams

Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.

But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.

I come to this question from health informatics, where I study how even AI-generated information that sounds clear, fluent, and helpful still requires careful review before it reaches a patient. The same verification problem applies to elections. The more authoritative a system sounds, the more important it becomes to make sure the output can be checked.

DC’s June 16 primary followed a system that requires more than a simple tally: Voters rank candidates, and if no candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, lower-performing candidates are eliminated, and votes are redistributed according to voters’ next choices. New York City already uses ranked-choice voting in local primary and special elections.

AI may soon be able to produce election results in seconds. That does not mean it should.

There is nothing wrong with ranked-choice voting, but it must be carried out with verifiable results. Because election counting is not just a math problem; it is a trust problem, especially in the US today, where election workers face harassment, routine counting delays are recast as fraud, and many voters already doubt institutions before a single ballot is counted.

In this climate, counting ranked-choice votes in a way that allows for public verification might take longer than people are used to. Every ballot must be tied to a voter-verifiable record. Every round of tabulation must be explainable. Every disputed outcome must be auditable by people who can inspect the evidence themselves.

AI is not yet counting votes, but AI and machine-assisted systems are already touching elections before ballots are counted, including information voters receive, and how their signatures are reviewed. In 2024, X’s Grok chatbot gave users false information about ballot deadlines; after election officials from five states complained, X changed Grok so election-related questions directed users to Vote.gov, the federal government’s official voting information website. In North Carolina, 10 counties piloted automated signature-verification software for absentee-by-mail ballots in 2024. The pilot did not affect whether any ballot was counted, but later reporting found reliability problems: The software failed to match about 11% of signatures, most software-flagged signatures were approved after human review, and technical issues complicated the test. Neither example is the same as artificial intelligence counting votes, but both show how software can shape what voters are told or what happens before a ballot enters the count.

I have seen the problem in my own research. AI systems can cite studies that do not exist, with titles, authors, and journals that look real until you check them. A 2026 Nature analysis⁠ warned that hallucinated citations are polluting scientific literature, and OpenAI researchers have warned⁠ that some training and evaluation systems reward guessing over acknowledging uncertainty. A system that gives a confident answer may look more useful, even when that confidence is misplaced, than one that says, “I don’t know.”

That matters because elections often turn on ballot conditions that are not immediately machine readable and need human review: stray marks, undervotes, overvotes, damaged ballots, or ambiguous voter intent. In races where the margin between the candidates is narrow, a few disputed ballots can change the result. These questions should not be resolved by a system whose rules, error rates, or decision process the public cannot understand or meaningfully examine. They should be handled through documented procedures, human review, paper records, and public audits.

Human counting is also imperfect. But precisely because humans are fallible, democratic systems have developed safeguards such as paper ballots, bipartisan observation, chain-of-custody rules, cure processes, recounts, and post-election audits. Risk-limiting audits⁠, for example, hand check samples of paper ballots and can trigger a fuller count if the sample does not support the reported result. Colorado was the first state to conduct a statewide risk-limiting audit in 2017; today, all Colorado counties conduct one before results are certified. Other states have since adopted, required, or piloted risk-limiting audits.

The best election systems do not ask voters to trust either a person or a machine. They produce evidence. That is where current policy is behind the curve. States have moved quickly to regulate AI-generated deepfakes in campaign communications, because fake videos and robocalls can mislead voters. But far less attention has been paid to the AI inside election administration itself. That gap should close before AI moves deeper into election administration, especially into decisions that could affect whether a ballot is accepted, cured, rejected, or counted.

Federal and state governments should establish clear standards for AI used in anything election related. The Brennan Center for Justice⁠ has called for such safeguards around quality, transparency, consistency, certification, and monitoring. Election offices should have to explain to the public what an AI system does, who checks it, and how voters can verify the evidence. AI systems whose rules, error rates, or decision process the public cannot understand or meaningfully examine should not make final decisions about whether a ballot counts.

Voters have a role, too. Ask your local election officials whether AI tools are being used anywhere in election administration and how those decisions can be audited. Ask how voters will know if the AI setup gets something wrong. And volunteer as a poll worker. You don’t need a background in elections; local officials train you. Democracy needs more people who understand how ballots are handled, checked, and verified.

AI may soon be able to produce election results in seconds. That does not mean it should. The labor of democracy is not a bottleneck in need of streamlining. It is part of the safeguard.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Davis Austria
Davis Austria is an assistant professor of health informatics conducting AI research at Xavier University of Louisiana, a Hopelab HBCU translational science fellow, and a Public Voices fellow with The OpEd Project.
Full Bio >



Queen’s Brian May outraged by AI version of album cover and tells UK PM Andy Burnham: ‘You must stop it now’

Queen’s Brian May outraged by AI version of album cover and tells UK PM Andy Burnham: ‘You must stop it now’
Copyright AP Photo


By David Mouriquand
Published on

"Maybe this is the time to realise WE ACTUALLY DON'T NEED AI," Brian May declared when posting a ridiculously poor version of what AI thinks one of Queen's albums looks like. He has urged UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham to block AI "before it's too late".

Queen guitarist Brian May has taken to Instagram to post an AI-generated version of the artwork of the band’s classic 1980 album ‘The Game’.

May used Meta AI to make the cover, which resurrects late frontman Freddie Mercury. He did so in order to make a “very serious” point about the environmental impact of AI to UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Check out the post below:

The original cover sees all four members of Queen standing side-by-side in matching leather jackets.

As you can tell by the AI version, there are now apparently five members in Queen, and they're all unrecognisable.

Check out the original album cover for comparison:

Queen - The Game (1980)
Queen - The Game (1980) EMI / Elektra
So this is the kind of intelligence that will soon be ruling the world ??! Well, great. Maybe this is the time to realise WE ACTUALLY DON’T NEED AI !!
 Brian May 

May captioned the picture of the laughably poor AI cover: “I just had to share this with you guys. I asked Meta AI to show me what the cover of THE GAME album looked like. This is what it gave me ! Good job, eh ?”

“So this is the kind of intelligence that will soon be ruling the world ??! Well, great. Maybe this is the time to realise WE ACTUALLY DON’T NEED AI !!”

May added that he was “now very serious”, adding: “I believe the price we are about to pay for this ‘inevitable’ development is way too high. We must not allow these hideous Data Centres to be built in the UK. They will destroy our beautiful country, like they are already destroying beautiful America.”

Addressing Prime Minister Andy Burnham, May signed off his post by writing: “Dear Andy – you must stop it now. Before it’s too late.”

May's comments come at a time when creative fields are wrestling with the existential crisis that AI can represent. It's a divisive topic, with various artists condemning its use and the recent likes of Martin Scorsese and George Lucas receiving backlash for their endorsement of AI.

Recently, Brad Pitt spoke about the use of generative AI in music.

“I heard an AI song the other day that was pretty damn good,” he said in an interview with Esquire. “But it had a repetitive nature to it. It’s not going to be the same as hearing her voice - a woman’s voice, a person’s voice.”

In July, British record producer and singer Nia Archives said AI music “won’t last” while speaking at the launch of the Mercury Prize.

“I don’t know if AI music will last to be honest with you," she said. "I think it’s quite like a fleeting technology moment.”




Spotify to label AI-generated artist personas with new ‘AI Persona’ badges

Spotify to add 'AI Persona' badges on AI-generated artist profiles
Copyright Credit: Spotify
By Theo Farrant
Published on

Spotify's move comes as AI-generated music floods streaming platforms, with Deezer recently reporting that AI tracks accounted for more than half of all new daily uploads in June.

Music streaming giant Spotify has announced that from September it will begin adding an “AI Persona” badge to some artist profiles, helping listeners identify when an artist’s music may have been generated using artificial intelligence.

AI Personas will also be excluded from Spotify’s editorial and algorithmic recommendations, in an effort to give greater visibility to music made by genuine human musicians and artists.

Spotify will give artists the option to disclose whether they consider themselves an AI Persona. The platform will also conduct its own reviews to identify profiles that appear to be AI-generated identities.

Listeners will also beable to report artists they believe should be reviewed by Spotify’s team.

"Although there’s a broad spectrum in how artists use AI as a creative tool, the question of whether a profile represents an actual human is one where Spotify can help make a clear determination," reads a press release from Spotify.

It adds: "This badge is about the artist’s public identity, not about how the music was made."

Growing concerns over AI music

The move comes at a time of growing concern across the music industry over the volume of AI-generated musical slop flooding streaming platforms.

In June, French music streaming service Deezer reported that uploads of AI-generated tracks had, for the first time, exceeded half of all daily new music deliveries.

Following the milestone, the platform said it would remove generative-AI tracks being used to generate fraudulent streams, as well as tracks that had not been streamed for six months or more.

Spotify has faced a similar problem. Last year, the platform revealed that it had removed 75 million spam tracks over a 12-month period, as AI tools contributed to a flood of low-quality and fraudulent music.

The alarming success of AI-generated music

The Velvet Sundown provided an early glimpse of how easily AI-generated artists can break through into the mainstream. The psychedelic rock project appeared on Spotify in 2025 and quickly amassed more than a million monthly listeners, releasing two albums in June.

Its supposed four members - complete with names (led by vocalist and “mellotron sorcerer” Gabe Farrow), photographs and elaborate biographies - appeared to present the band as a genuine four-piece from the US.

AI-generated image of the fictitious band The Velvet Sundown
AI-generated image of the fictitious band The Velvet Sundown Credit: The Velvet Sundown

But doubts soon emerged. Reddit users started questioning the band’s authenticity after their music began appearing in listeners’ Spotify Discover Weekly playlists, while the group's imagery and promotional material appeared clearly artificial.

The band’s own social media accounts initially denied the allegations, insisting that the music had been created by “real” people using “real instruments, real minds, and real soul”.

Eventually, The Velvet Sundown’s Spotify profile was updated to acknowledge the truth. The band described itself as a “synthetic music project guided by human creative direction”, with its music, voices, lyrics and imagery created with the assistance of AI.

The group still has more than 100,000 monthly listeners and several of their tracks have over one millions streams.

The phenomenon has also begun to spill into more traditional measures of musical success with the AI-generated country project Breaking Rust reaching No 1 on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart with “Walk My Walk”.

The viral track now has close to 30 million streams on Spotify.


Opposition to local data centers rises sharply, Annenberg survey finds



3 in 5 Americans oppose data centers; broader views of AI hold steady



Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Opposition to local data centers rises sharply; views on AI hold steady 

image: 

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center IOD 2026 national surveys in June-July and in February-March.

view more 

Credit: Annenberg Public Policy Center






PHILADELPHIA – As protesters rally against data center construction in dozens of states and New York and Texas pause the issuance of permits for large data centers, a new nationally representative survey finds that Americans’ opposition to data centers in their communities has risen sharply since last spring.

The survey, conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania, finds that about 3 in 5 U.S. adults (61%) oppose the construction of new data centers in their area, up 12 percentage points from an APPC survey in February and March.

Americans’ broader views of artificial intelligence (AI), however, have remained stable. The share saying that AI’s impact on the United States over the next 10 years will be somewhat or very negative was 39%, statistically unchanged from the spring. Two-thirds (68%) continue to say the government has done “too little” to regulate AI, unchanged from the spring.

The movement over these four months was concentrated in one place: what Americans think about the physical infrastructure of a data center being built near their home.

Read the complete news release here.

Key findings

The survey, by the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy division, was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,320 U.S. adult citizens from June 16-July 19, 2026. It finds that:

  • Opposition to local data centers rose 12 points over four months: Three in five Americans (61%) now somewhat or strongly oppose the construction of new data centers in their area, up from 49% in the survey ending in March. Only 14% are supportive, down from 21% in the spring.
  • Opposition crosses party lines and is highest among younger adults: Majorities of Democrats (69%), Republicans (54%) and independents (53%) oppose new local data centers. Opposition is highest among young adults under 30 (70%) and declines to 57% among those 65 and older, the inverse of what one might expect for a new technology.
  • Views of AI overall, and demand for regulation, have held steady: 39% expect AI’s impact on the United States to be negative over the next decade, against 18% who expect it to be positive, unchanged from the spring. Over two-thirds (68%) say the government has done “too little” to regulate AI, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
  • Medical research remains the one area where Americans expect AI to help: Across 13 areas, only medical research and discoveries draws a net-positive assessment (+41 points) in which the anticipated benefits of AI outweigh the expected negatives. The most negative areas are personal privacy and data security (-63 points), children’s safety online (-50 points), and employment and jobs (-46 points).
  • People who use AI are less negative about it – but not about data centers. Among those who report “never” using AI in the past month, 54% expect AI’s impact on the United States to be negative. That falls to 40% among light users and 29% among those who used AI many times or almost every day. But opposition to local data centers is essentially flat across different usage groups.

“The people who use AI the most are the most optimistic about what it will do for the country, and that has been consistent across our surveys,” said University of Pennsylvania political science professor Matt Levendusky, the Stephen and Mary Baran Chair in the Institutions of Democracy at APPC. “That optimism, however, has clear limits, and it disappears when we ask about privacy, about jobs, and about whether a data center should go up nearby. Even heavy AI users seem to be concerned about these very concrete worries.”

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy survey was conducted for APPC by SSRS, an independent research company, primarily online, with a small sample of phone respondents. Respondents were weighted to align with population benchmarks. The margin of error for the full sample is ±3.5 percentage points, and it is larger for subgroups.

For additional data and details, read the full news release, the topline and the survey methodology.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.