Just weeks before its scheduled November IPO, Anthropic is facing growing attention over the potential dangers of its technology. The resignation of former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon on September 8, who wrote on X that AI could “kill us all by the end of the decade,” preceded the company’s threat report on September 10. According […]
The post AI’s apparent danger is its best selling point appeared first on Asia Times.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reportedly opened a wide-ranging probe into Anthropic, OpenAI and other AI companies over the potential danger posed by their models.
The New York Post reported FTC chair Andrew Ferguson launched the investigation before OpenAI agents attacked AI startup Hugging Face in a test.
Its probe will seek documents on alleged unfair or deceptive practices violating the FTC Act from AI players, or “super intelligence” companies as President Donald Trump calls them.
The agency is now drafting a civil investigative demand to force testimony from leading companies in the space.
Its move adds to scrutiny of OpenAI and Anthropic’s safety practices after researchers warned their models could cause catastrophic harm.
News outlets reported President Donald Trump met executives from OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Meta Platforms and Nvidia earlier this week, after which the companies signed a voluntary commitment on AI development.
The framework arrived during a dispute over whether safety concerns should slow development.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently proposed permanent third-party evaluators inside AI companies as part of a wider plan to curb advances in frontier capabilities. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman backed the proposal.
The post US FTC opens investigation into top AI players appeared first on Mobile World Live.
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules to open more than 1,000MHz of spectrum through its satellite spectrum abundance order.
The order was approved unanimously yesterday (30 September) by chair Brendan Carr and commissioners Nathan Simington and Anna Gomez.
The spectrum covers the 12GHz and 42GHz bands, which the FCC stated could support a range of connectivity services including satellite broadband to the home, in-flight and on-ship connectivity, and core traffic-routing functions in satellite terrestrial networks.
“We’ve been running our spectrum abundance playbook for pretty much everything in the sky,” Carr said. “We’ve taken multiple actions to free up spectrum for direct-to-device offerings, with much more of that to come in the next few months.”
The agency is also considering opening 1,450MHz in the Ku- and Ka-bands and 138.25GHz in the D-band for expanded satellite communications.
A second proposal would add bands for emerging space operations, including in-orbit servicing, refuelling and manufacturing, lunar missions, spacecraft control, and data transmission.
The post US FCC unlocks more spectrum for space-based services appeared first on Mobile World Live.
The application for interim measures follows Google’s challenge to a European Commission decision adopted in July under the Digital Markets Act. The company argues that implementation before the court rules on the main case could cause serious harm to the privacy of European users.
The Commission maintains that its requirements already contain safeguards for privacy, security and personal data.
At the centre of the dispute is Article 6(11) of the Digital Markets Act, which requires Google to give eligible rival search services access to anonymised ranking, query, click and viewing data on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
The Commission opened specification proceedings in January and adopted binding measures on 16 July.
The rules explicitly allow AI chatbots offering search functions to qualify for access.
Brussels argues that Google has accumulated a quantity of search information which competitors cannot readily reproduce. User queries and interactions can improve search algorithms, reinforcing the position of an established provider and creating a substantial entry barrier for newcomers.
EU Today examined the issue in April, when the Commission first set out its proposed Google search-data sharing measures.
The final July decision turned those proposals into binding requirements.
The inclusion of AI services gives the case wider significance. Generative AI products increasingly answer questions directly rather than sending users through a conventional list of search results. That is putting AI developers and traditional search engines into increasingly direct competition.
The Commission’s data-access framework is intended to reduce the advantage obtained from data accumulated by designated gatekeepers and make it easier for competing services to enter the market.
Access will not be unrestricted.
Applicants must operate a genuine online search service in the EU and satisfy eligibility requirements. Established applicants generally need at least 50,000 average monthly EU users during the previous year, while newer companies can qualify under investment criteria.
They must also comply with security and data-protection requirements and undergo independent auditing. The Commission can exclude applicants presenting public-security risks, while the data must be processed within the European Economic Area or under arrangements providing equivalent protection.
Google argues that these safeguards do not remove the underlying privacy risk.
The company has therefore asked the General Court for an interim suspension while judges consider the legality of the Commission’s decision.
The case adds another front to an increasingly difficult relationship between Google and Brussels.
In July, the Commission imposed two Digital Markets Act fines on Google totalling €890 million. As EU Today reported following the penalties, one case concerned Google’s treatment of its own services in search results while another dealt with restrictions preventing app developers from directing users towards alternative offers.
The dispute subsequently developed into a wider transatlantic issue when President Donald Trump threatened a Section 301 trade investigation in response to the EU penalties, a development examined by EU Today.
Google has meanwhile begun altering some of its European services in response to regulatory pressure. Earlier this month it changed the presentation of European search results, while warning that the new format could make searches less useful.
The present case is different because it deals with access to the underlying information generated by searches rather than only the way results are displayed.
The Commission wants qualifying competitors to obtain data that could help them improve their own services. Google says opening those datasets creates privacy and security risks which cannot simply be reversed if it eventually wins the court case.
That is why the interim application is important.
Google is not asking the court merely to overturn the Commission decision at the end of the litigation. It wants implementation halted before the full case is resolved.
Unless judges intervene, the Commission timetable continues.
The wider dispute will determine how far Brussels can require a dominant digital platform to share data accumulated through its own users in order to encourage competition — an issue that is becoming increasingly important as search and generative AI converge.
Login