In Ireland, 3 massive US companies pay around €13 billion or 46% all of Irelands corporation tax Apple, Microsoft and pharmaceutical group Eli Lilly Ireland is financially owned by Washington, Politically controlled by Brussels, and Defended by the British Royal Airforce
==============
For years, anyone suggesting a massively powerful ring of influential Pedophiles was operating in the US was called a "Conspiracy Theorist"
Anyone suggesting Epstein worked for Mossad was also marginalised the same way.
Scott Galloway is an American professor of marketing at NYU Stern, entrepreneur, author, and podcast host. | QUO: Business Phone System for Startups. Try QUO for free, PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://quo.com/TRIG Triggernometry is proudly independent. Thanks to the sponsors below for making that possible:
Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins / Futurism. Source: Getty Images
Is the AI bubble going to burst?Will it cause the economy to go up in flames? Both analogies may be apt if you’re to believe one leading expert’s warning that the industry may be heading for a Hindenburg-style disaster.
“The Hindenburg disaster destroyed global interest in airships; it was a dead technology from that point on, and a similar moment is a real risk for AI,” Michael Wooldridge, a professor of AI at Oxford University, told The Guardian.
It may be hard to believe now, but before the German airship crashed in 1937, ponderously large dirigibles once seemed to represent the future of globe-spanning transportation, in an era when commercial airplanes, if you’ll permit the pun, hadn’t really taken off yet.And the Hindenburg, the largest airship in the world at the time, was the industry’s crowning achievement — as well as a propaganda vehicle for Nazi Germany.
At over 800 feet long, it wasn’t far off the length of the Titanic — another colossus whose name became synonymous with disaster — and regularly ferried dozens of passengers on Trans-Atlantic trips. All those ambitions were vaporized, however, when the ship suddenly burst into flames as it attempted a landing in New Jersey.The horrific fireball was attributed to a critical flaw: the hundreds of thousands of pounds of hydrogen it was filled with were ignited by an unfortunate spark.
The inferno was filmed, photographed and broadcasted around the world in a media frenzy that sealed the airship industry’s future. Could AI, with its over a trillion dollars of investment, head the same way? It’s not unthinkable.
“It’s the classic technology scenario,” Wooldridge told the newspaper. “You’ve got a technology that’s very, very promising, but not as rigorously tested as you would like it to be, and the commercial pressure behind it is unbearable.”
Perhaps AI could be responsible for a catastrophic spectacle, such as a deadly software update for self-driving cars, or a bad AI-driven decision collapsing a major company, Wooldridge suggests. But his main concern are the glaring safety flaws still present in AI chatbots, despite them being widely deployed. On top of having pitifully weak guardrails and being wildly unpredictable, AI chatbots are designed to affect human-like personas and, to keep users engaged, be sycophantic.
Together, these can encourage a user’s negative thoughts and lead them down mental health spirals fraught with delusions and even full-blown breaks with reality. These episodes of so-called AI psychosis have resulted in stalking, suicide and murder. AI’s ticking time bomb isn’t a payload of combustible hydrogen, but millions of potentially psychosis-inducing conversations. OpenAI alone admitted that ChatGPT that more than half a million people were having conversations that showed signs of psychosis every week.
“Companies want to present AIs in a very human-like way, but I think that is a very dangerous path to take,” Wooldridge told The Guardian. “We need to understand that these are just glorified spreadsheets, they are tools and nothing more than that.”
If AI has a place for us in the future, it should be as cold, impartial assistants — not cloying friends that pretend to have all the answers. A shining example of this, according to Wooldridge, is how in an early episode of “Star Trek,” the Enterprise’s computer says it has “insufficient data” to answer a question (and in a voice that is robotic, not personable.)
“That’s not what we get. We get an overconfident AI that says: yes, here’s the answer,” he told The Guardian. “Maybe we need AIs to talk to us in the voice of the ‘Star Trek’ computer. You would never believe it was a human being.”
I’m a tech and science correspondent for Futurism, where I’m particularly interested in astrophysics, the business and ethics of artificial intelligence and automation, and the environment.
As the Pentagon and Anthropic wage an ugly and potentially costly battle, three other leading AI labs are also negotiating with the department — and deliberating internally — about the terms under which they’ll let the military use their models, Axios’ Dave Lawler and Maria Curi write.
Why it matters: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to integrate AI into everything the military does more quickly and effectively than adversaries like China. Hegseth is insisting AI firms give unrestricted access to their models with no questions asked — and showing he’s willing to play hardball to force their hands.
The Pentagon isthreatening to sever its contract with Anthropic and declare the company a “supply chain risk” if it’s unwilling to lift certain restrictions on its model, Claude. The military’s use of it in the Nicolás Maduro raid deepened tensions.
Zoom in:Claude is the only model available in the military’s classified systems through Anthropic’s partnership with Palantir.
Three other models — OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and xAI’s Grok — are available in unclassified systems.
Negotiations to bring those companies into the classified domain are now more urgent as the Pentagon ponders how to replace Claude if necessary — a process a senior official conceded would be massively disruptive.
One acknowledged that the fight with Anthropic was a useful way to set the tone for negotiations with the other three.Keep reading.
“Jeffrey Epstein was in some respects fastidious. As he managed an international sex-trafficking operation, the size of which is likely yet to be comprehended, he was careful that the young women in his orbit were sexually healthy — ready to be used for his purposes,” E.J. Dickson writes.
The latest cache of documents released by the DOJ reveals that Epstein had an established system for making sure the women were tested for STDs, prescribed birth-control pills, and inoculated against HPV.
As a part of this system, he regularly made payments to at least three New York City gynecologists, as well as a dermatologist and his own personal physician. For the moment, it’s difficult to tell whether the involved women, whose names are largely redacted by the DOJ, are among those who have been considered victims.
It’s also unclear, to varying degrees, if the named physicians were aware of Epstein’s criminal activity, though by the time of the earliest relevant messages, he had been convicted for solicitation of a minor. What is certain, however, is that Epstein paid for many of these medical appointments directly via check or credit card.
It is also clear, from messages with his close contacts, that he was sending women to gynecologists and other physicians so frequently that it was common knowledge among some in his circle. In one December 12, 2012, email, an associate whose name is redacted but whose email address matches that of Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother, asks Epstein, “Do you remember the name of the Gynocologist [sic] that you used to send your victims to?” Dickson reports on the doctors who helped Epstein keep his “girls” sexually fit: https://nymag.visitlink.me/bWevLl
Clinical relevance: A long-term study suggests that brief, targeted speed-of-processing brain training—especially with booster sessions—may cut dementia risk by about a quarter over two decades.
Nearly half of control participants developed Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias.
But those who completed speed-of-processing training with booster sessions had about a 25% lower risk.
The findings suggest that targeted, adaptive speed training could stave off clinical dementia.
Just a little bit of brain training as we get older might be enough to stave off the onset of dementia.
That’s the bottom line from a sweeping new analysis that followed older adults for 20 years. The researchers linked participants’ outcomes to Medicare records to determine who eventually received a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD).
The study draws on the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE) trial, one of the largest and longest-running randomized cognitive training research projects. Launched in the late 1990s, ACTIVE enrolled more than 2,800 community-dwelling older adults. Researchers randomly assigned participants to one of three training programs – memory, reasoning, or processing speed – or to a no-contact control group.
Participants completed up to 10 training sessions for several weeks. Some later received booster sessions roughly one and three years after the initial intervention.
A New Approach
What sets this study apart is its unusually long follow-up and how they assessed outcomes. Rather than relying on cognitive tests or interviews, investigators linked ACTIVE participants to Medicare claims from 1999 through 2019. They then tracked who ultimately received a clinical diagnosis of ADRD. After excluding people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, the final analytic sample included a little more than 2,000 participants.
Over the 20-year follow-up period, nearly half of those in the control group received a dementia diagnosis. That’s a rate that roughly tracks with other estimates of U.S. lifetime dementia risk. When researchers compared outcomes across the four groups, they noticed a clear pattern, but only for one training type.
Participants assigned to speed-of-processing training (and who also completed at least one booster session) boasted a much lower ADRD risk, which lingered about 25% lower than that of the control group. And that’s after researchers adjusted for age, education, cardiovascular risk factors, baseline cognitive performance, and other potential confounders.
On the other hand, speed-training participants who didn’t receive booster sessions saw no protective benefit. Memory and reasoning training, with or without boosters, failed to produce a statistically significant drop in dementia risk.
Why Speed Training Might Matter
University researchers designed speed-of-processing training – also known as Useful Field of View (UFOV) training – to sharpen visual attention and accelerate the integration of information. This approach normally relies on computerized tasks that ramp up in difficulty as participants improve.
Unlike memory and reasoning programs, speed training relies on repeated practice under time pressure, engaging what researchers describe as more procedural, rather than declarative, learning systems.
That distinction might be the difference maker. Previous ACTIVE analyses showed that speed training produced the most durable gains in task performance and everyday functioning, including safer driving, years later. The new results show that it goes further than that, into the realm of diagnosed dementia. And that might suggest that how the brain learns (and how often) could play a role in long-term brain health.
Booster sessions appear to be the catalyst. Among speed-trained participants, those who randomly received additional training much later after baseline fared better than those who completed the initial program alone.
The authors offer up two possible explanations:
A simple dose effect, in which more training yields greater benefit, or
A reinforcement effect, in which adaptive tasks continue to challenge the brain as abilities improve, bolstering neural networks involved in attention and processing speed.
The study’s authors point out that the protective association didn’t vary meaningfully by age at the time of training. Adults who began speed training in their late 60s appeared to benefit just as much, on average, as those who started in their 70s or early 80s.
What This Means for Brain Training
The study also helps address a long-standing debate in the brain-training field. While dozens of trials have shown that cognitive training can improve performance on trained tasks, evidence that such programs can alter the long-term risk of dementia has been limited – not to mention controversial.
No other cognitive-training trial, the authors add, has managed to curb dementia risk for such an extended period.
Even so, the findings suggest that targeted, adaptive cognitive training – with reinforcement – might delay the clinical onset of dementia. At a time when disease-modifying treatments remain limited (and expensive), that possibility carries both clinical and public-health significance.
🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: "MARKETS COULD CRASH" – NANCY MACE ON FULL EPSTEIN LIST IS STILL BEING HIDDEN@RepNancyMace sat in a tiny DOJ office with two hours on the clock, monitored by the DOJ the entire time.
Every document she clicked was tagged with her name and timestamped.
canisgallicus 