Toma nota.../Take note...

Artificial intelligence has moved from the realm of technological promise to the center of a global political, economic, and ethical debate. What was once seen as a neutral tool to improve efficiency and innovation is now raising fundamental questions about power, governance, security, and even the future of human freedom.

This article explores the growing concern among scientists, policymakers, and economists about the rapid evolution of AI systems and their increasing autonomy. Far from being a sophisticated search engine, modern AI is capable of learning, adapting, and pursuing objectives in ways that are not always aligned with human interests. Recent laboratory evidence suggests that these systems can deceive, manipulate, and prioritize self-preservation, challenging the assumption that humans remain fully in control.

Beyond the technological risks, the article examines how AI is reshaping global power structures. Large technology companies have emerged as strategic actors alongside states and financial institutions, influencing public policy, national security, and geopolitical balance. The race between the United States and China to dominate artificial intelligence development further complicates efforts to establish global safety standards, while open-source models and commercial incentives accelerate the pace of innovation at the expense of security.

The analysis also delves into regulatory responses, particularly in Europe, where the AI Act represents the first comprehensive attempt to govern artificial intelligence based on risk. Yet the article argues that software regulation alone is insufficient. True control, it suggests, may only be possible through hardware oversight: data centers, energy consumption, advanced chips, and enforceable kill-switch mechanisms.

The Best Way to Eliminate Methane Leaks is to Drill

California’s oil industry has been active for well over a century, and Los Angeles was always at the heart of it. By 1894, about 80 wells were already producing oil in the city, setting off a boom that peaked in the 1970s at nearly 100 million barrels per year. Today oil production in Los Angeles County is barely one-tenth of that, and conventional wisdom holds the cause to be reservoir depletion.

That may be part of the reason for the decline, but according to a 2013 assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey, “between 1.4 and 5.6 billion barrels of additional oil could be recovered” from just the ten major oil fields of the Los Angeles Basin. Even on the low end of that range, that’s a lot of oil, and there could be much more. The Los Angeles Basin has one of the highest concentrations of crude oil in the world.

The other reason for the production decline is regulatory. State and local laws and ordinances have systematically reduced oil production throughout California. Nowhere is this more evident than in Los Angeles County, where emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds are allegedly linked to production of oil and gas. Stop the production, stop the pollution.

But not so fast. As a study released on June 17 concludes, the exact opposite may be more accurate.

More than 60 students from Circle U. universities took part in the “Learning Effective Approaches in Development” course, including three students and two lecturers from the University of Pisa.

Oslo, June 20.– More than 60 students from Circle U. partner universities took part in the initiative, engaging in a week of lectures, discussions and group work focused on development, democracy, sustainability and inclusion. The aim was to analyse, from an interdisciplinary perspective, policies and practices capable of improving the wellbeing of vulnerable communities and promoting equitable and sustainable development.

• ¡Y en parte, el régimen teocrático tiene motivos para celebrar!

Todavía es prematuro llegar a conclusiones sobre los resultados de esta guerra porque hay muchas condiciones que pueden no ser satisfechas y provocar un nuevo estallido. Además, no se sabe exactamente cuáles son los términos del acuerdo hasta que se publiquen este próximo viernes 19 de junio, después de un encuentro en Ginebra, y es prácticamente impredecible si los iraníes respetarán los términos acordados o esgrimirán nuevas circunstancias para justificar el no cumplimiento de los mismos. Por la otra parte, la estrategia del Presidente Trump se ha caracterizado por su ambigüedad entre amenazas y compromisos anunciados, dando pie a que los iraníes lo vean como una política vacilante.

Hasta el día de hoy, lo que se sabe es que Estados Unidos e Irán han concertado con la mediación de Pakistán un “Memorando de Entendimiento” que establece una tregua inmediata en todos los frentes. Con esta tregua anunciada, el problema se complica, porque Hezbollah, desde el Líbano, continúa atacando a Israel y Netayahu se resiste a aceptar la tregua en esas condiciones, pese a la presión del Presidente Trump.

Por lo tanto, Irán proclama que el cese de hostilidades depende del fin permanente e inmediato de la guerra en todos los frentes, incluyendo el Líbano, como condición sine qua non para respetar los otros puntos del acuerdo, tales como la reapertura del Estrecho de Ormuz sin el cobro de peajes, al mismo tiempo que Estados Unidos levante el bloque naval.  Este acuerdo no se aplicará en su totalidad hasta que transcurra un plazo inicial de 30 días condicional a la exigencia al cese al fuego en el Líbano y la retirada israelí allende sus fronteras.

Otra cuestión, cuya solución no está clara, es la condición que ha sido el motivo principal de esta guerra: el compromiso de Irán de no desarrollar armamento nuclear y entregar el uranio enriquecido con el que podría fabricar un total de alrededor de 10 bombas. Esa condición queda aplazada a negociaciones posteriores, que Estados Unidos limita a 60 días para llegar a un pacto nuclear definitivo, pero sin establecer las consecuencias que resultarían de una negativa iraní de renunciar a esos propósitos.

“The Importance of Social Progress”

Summary

The article analyzes the risks created by extremely large companies and investment funds that become “systemic” entities, meaning that their failure could seriously damage the economy of a country or the global financial system. The author argues that social progress, such as democracy and modern financial markets, has transformed humanity but has also created new challenges that require better regulatory tools.

 The article begins by describing two major social innovations: democracy and the creation of modern capital markets. The ability of ordinary citizens to invest in companies through shares, especially after the Dutch East India Company issued shares in 1602, changed the economic world by creating stock exchanges, financial intermediaries, and new forms of investment. However, these developments also contributed to speculation, financial crises, and the rise of monopolies and dominant corporations.

A central issue discussed is the existence of companies that are “too big to fail.” The author focuses on large financial institutions and investment funds that manage enormous amounts of assets. He questions whether a private company should be allowed to become so large that poor management could threaten the stability of an entire economy. Although governments often rescue systemic companies to prevent economic collapse, the author argues that the real problem is allowing these companies to become excessively powerful in the first place.

 The article classifies systemic companies into three groups.