Anthropic — 26/09/2026

While much recent attention has focused on Anthropic's and OpenAI's own security incidents - for which they should rightly be held accountable - it's worth not losing sight of the other side of the story: how threat actors attempt to weaponize these frontier models in the first place. Anthropic's latest threat intelligence report is valuable precisely because it sheds light on this dynamic, documenting real-world attempts by state-linked groups, commercial surveillance vendors, and criminal networks to misuse Claude for espionage, mass surveillance, and data exfiltration.

Le Temps — 26/09/2026

Les récents événements autour des LLM montrent que les entreprises ne veulent pas, ou ne peuvent pas, contenir le génie qu'elles ont libéré. Face à cela, je compte sur un véritable contre-poids de la part de nos gouvernements. On observe une tendance à tout autoriser au nom du profit, alors que l'expérience a montré à maintes reprises que cela ne mène pas à un usage responsable de la technologie. J'espère donc que le prochain sommet mondial sur l'IA ne se contentera pas de vanter les progrès de la Suisse, mais permettra aussi une réelle collaboration entre gouvernements pour s'accorder sur une régulation efficace de ces nouvelles technologies.

US DOJ - Office of Public Affairs — 24/09/2026

The Trump administration continues its crusade against European sovereignty and the rule of law. By intervening before the EU's General Court to support X Corp. and Elon Musk's bid to annul the first fine ever imposed under the DSA (€120 million), the US government has crossed a new threshold. By doing so, it seems that Washington not only implicitly questions the Commission’s jurisdiction over U.S.-headquartered digital services companies (a question long settled in the jurisprudence) but also tries to apply American corporate-law principles (corporate veil, territoriality…) in European enforcement actions.

The Guardian — 24/09/2026

This marks the third security incident involving OpenAI - that is known to the public - and we urgently need to stop getting distracted by the AI companies' narrative about "rogue AI" and hold them responsible, not only legally but also morally. Each time, it is their experiment that goes wrong, it is their security infrastructure that fails to contain it, and - worse of all - it is their poor and unprofessional handling of disclosure of the incident. This is not a problem of "rogue AI", this is a company that is obviously incapable of handling the security implications of their own products, and this is what we really should be concerned about.

The Markup — 16/09/2026

Unfortunately, there's nothing new under the sun, but it's worth repeating. Advertising profiling may now seem normal to us. However, profiling that affects credit ratings or insurance premiums is unacceptable. Companies infer sensitive information, sometimes even coding for ethnic origin or health status, and mask medical and health data to avoid legal action. Once the data is sold, it becomes untraceable, errors cannot be rectified and deletion is impossible. Our data is valuable, but consent is meaningless, oversight is inadequate, and lobbying ensures this remains the case.

The New York Times — 02/08/2026

I like the example given in this article because it made me reconsider whether "more data = a better life." The usual answer is "it depends" on what we do with that data. If it means replacing human contact with streams of bits, forgetting how to cope when there's a glitch in the cloud, or delegating child-rearing to big tech because "they know better," then it's definitely bad. On the other hand, making well-informed decisions based on actual data is surely better than handwaving or trial and error, especially when it can be a matter of life or death. Finding the right balance between these extremes would be wise. I also wonder how much attachment a baby would form to these surrounding cameras, and how much it would miss them if one day they weren't there.