Accountability for harms arising from algorithmic systems by Future of Life Institute, HRW, Amnesty, agencies   May 2026   Pope Leo denounces ‘culture of power’ driving rise of AI. (HRW, news agencies)   Pope Leo has denounced the “culture of power” driving the rapid rise of artificial intelligence while warning that the technology must be subject to the “most rigorous” ethical constraints as it infiltrates everything from work to war.   Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas” (Magnificent Humanity), the Catholic Church’s authoritative pastoral letter released on May 25, emphasized the need for “safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence,” including the use of AI in warfare and the threat posed by killer robots.   Building on the church’s long-held position, Pope Leo wrote that “the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control.”   “No algorithm can make war morally acceptable,” reads the pope’s encyclical. “AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defence into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is inevitable and needs only to be optimized.”   The previous pope, Pope Francis, addressed in 2024 the existential threat posed by autonomous weapons systems, warning that “no machine should ever choose to take the life of a human being.”   Both pontiffs have argued that surrendering lethal decisions to algorithms degrades human dignity, and that it insulates politicians and military leaders from the moral weight of their actions. Christian, Buddhist, and Muslim groups joined a 2023 interfaith statement calling for “urgent united action against killer robots.”   The Stop Killer Robots campaign has called for a treaty with prohibitions and regulations on autonomous weapons systems. And now Pope Leo has appealed for “responsibility to … be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions” to ensure that “the development and use of AI in warfare is subject to the most rigorous ethical constraints, to guarantee respect for human dignity and the sanctity of life.”   Pope Leo urged the “disarming” of AI, while stating that some autonomous weapons systems are “practically beyond any human reach” to control.   “Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition,” he wrote. “To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity.”   The pope also warned that power over digital systems, infrastructure and data “does not rest with states but with major economic and technological actors”, and that when such power was concentrated “in the hands of the few” it tended to “become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities”.   Leo criticized the concentration of power and data in the hands of so few people in the private sector as a danger, especially to children and the most vulnerable, and called for external regulation of their work.   “As with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise, and access to data. In light of the common good and the universal destination of goods, this raises serious concerns, since small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes, and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples.”   For that reason, it is essential that AI be strictly regulated and face "robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility," the pope said.   Leo also warned of the threat to millions of jobs posed by AI.   “The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good,” Leo wrote.   “A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity.. resulting in human impoverishment,” the pope wrote. “This creates a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression that undermines the foundations of a just and stable social peace.”   http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/05/26/vatican-urges-strict-regulation-of-artificial-intelligence-in-war http://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/25/pope-leo-encyclical-ai-artificial-intelligence-slavery http://www.dw.com/en/pope-urges-disarming-of-ai-in-major-manifesto/a-77288369 http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/artificial-intelligence-and-digital-governance http://www.ips-journal.eu/work-and-digitalisation/the-tech-workers-building-ai-are-scared-of-it-too-9071/ http://www.commondreams.org/opinion/anthropic-claude-mythos http://evitable.com/in-the-news http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/05/anthropic-urges-temporary-pause-on-ai-development-to-discuss-risks http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-superintelligent-ai-development-national-strategy-mark-carney-evan-solomon-9.7222334 http://controlai.com/ http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/uae-plan-highlights-perils-of-governing-by-algorithm-by-gabriela-ramos-and-emilija-stojmenova-duh-2026-04 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/may/04/kenya-ai-healthcare-reforms-driving-up-costs-for-poor   Feb. 2026   India AI Impact Summit failed to rein in destructive practices of governments and technology companies. (Amnesty International)   “To date, AI summits have failed to advance the necessary regulations for a digitally safe future. If there is one clear takeaway from the India AI Impact Summit, it is that these gatherings have time and again proven largely irrelevant and ineffective at advancing binding rights protections or the safeguards necessary in the context of immense AI investment.   Each year and at each summit, the gulf between state action to safeguard people’s rights and wellbeing, and an increasingly unchecked powerful AI industry keeps growing. They have advanced techno-solutionist narratives and soft governance instruments, where industry and government deepen their alliances.   “States must urgently course‑correct the current AI trajectory, adopt binding guardrails that draw clear prohibitions around technologies that are incompatible with human rights.   “The Summit’s push on sovereignty, innovation and ‘democratisation’ feeds a global trend of turning AI into a race predicated on power accumulation and economic growth at all costs, rather than the collective global action needed to interrupt this. Achieving such a goal would only be possible if the Summit included strong civil society and impacted community engagement on rights concerns which was woefully absent from the start.   “While India was lauded by world leaders for its technological progress, the human rights concerns arising out of technology deployment in the country were papered over. Amnesty International’s own research has shown that the deployment of harmful technologies such as facial recognition and automation in the public sector have threatened the right to privacy and social protection in India and have led to discrimination and exclusion of marginalized communities. Systems of mass surveillance are being expanded in an already pernicious context of rights abuses.   * Massive job losses from the adoption of AI and Automation are predicted to be in the hundreds of millions globally and remain absent from international discussions. With AI industry PR agencies promoting "universal basic incomes" as a supposed antidote to such concerns. Such promotions are farcical, with the World Inequality Report 2026 reporting that the richest 10% of the world’s population owning 75% of wealth and the bottom half just 2%, with the top 1% wealthier than the bottom 90% combined. Government and financial institutions will continue to pursue austerity for the working classes and largesse for economic elites and the millions impacted by AI job losses will be left impoverished for Wall Street investors profits.   * The International Monetary Fund estimates at least 300 million full-time jobs globally affected by AI-related automation by 20230. Goldman Sachs has predicted that as many as half of all jobs could be fully automated by 2045, driven by generative AI and robotics. Amazon believes it can use robots to avoid adding more than half a million jobs in the next few years, the New York Times reports. 800 million workers to lose their jobs because of automation. That's the alarming conclusion of a 2017 report by global management consultants McKinsey.   23 Feb. 2026: Ethan Mollick - Ralph J. Roberts Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Co-Director, Generative AI Labs at Wharton University: "The CEOs of the AI labs have spent the last two years ominously discussing massive future job losses even as they continued AI development. As AI becomes more salient outside of the “AI bubble,” workers and policymakers are going to need to start taking that kind of talk very seriously".   * The environmental impact of datacenters required to power AI continues to raise alarm. The International Energy Agency projects that global electricity consumption of AI datacenters will increase 15% each year from 2024 to 2030, more than four times faster than the growth of electricity consumption from all other sectors.   “The demand for new datacenters cannot be met in a sustainable way,” says Noman Bashir, a climate impact fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s climate and sustainability consortium. “The pace at which companies are building new datacenters means the bulk of the electricity to power them must come from fossil fuel-based power plants.”   Speaking at the India AI Impact summit, OpenAI boss Sam Altman was condemned for comparing how much power is used by artificial intelligence models compared to the amount of energy required for human development.   “People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model – but it also takes a lot of energy to train a human,” Altman told the Indian Express. “It takes about 20 years of life – and all the food you consume during that time – before you become smart.”   Altman’s remarks generated a widespread backlash online, with many describing his comments as a dystopian disregard for human life, a common condition amongst tech billionaires.   More than 230 environmental groups have called for a moratorium on building AI datacenters in the US. “The rapid, largely unregulated rise of datacenters to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate and water security,” their letter states.   http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/02/global-india-ai-impact-summit-failed-to-reign-in-destructive-practices-of-governments-and-technology-companies/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/05/global-enormous-data-pipelines-powering-major-generative-ai-systems-are-rooted-in-mass-invasions-of-privacy-by-design/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/04/eu-simplification-laws http://www.accessnow.org/press-release/ai-action-summit-a-missed-opportunity-for-human-rights-centered-ai-governance/ http://www.accessnow.org/issue/artificial-intelligence/ http://www.ituc-csi.org/unions-call-for-strong-ai-guardrails-to-protect-workers http://www.uts.edu.au/research/centres/human-technology-institute/resources/contentassets/hti-snapshot-report---surveillance-creep-2026.pdf http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/publications/banality-global-algorithmic-violence-global-digital-transformations http://www.hrw.org/feature/2026/05/13/algorithms-of-exploitation/rights-abuses-in-the-gig-economy-and-the-global-fight http://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/smart-city-surveillance-in-africa-mapping-chinese-ai-surveillance-across-11-countries/ http://theelders.org/news/governments-must-act-now-manage-ai-public-good http://dialogue.earth/en/water/whose-water-is-ai-drinking-in-india/ http://unu.edu/inweh/news/environmental-cost-of-AIs-Enrgy-use-carbon-water-and-land-footprints http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167658 http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Org-Letter_-National-Data-Center-Moratorium.pdf http://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-releases-report-on-big-tech-oligarchs-war-against-workers-warns-ai-could-eliminate-nearly-100-million-u-s-jobs http://tinyurl.com/k4ynu9a2 http://peoplesaiaction.com/about http://www.citizen.org/article/deleting-enforcement-trump-big-tech-billion-report   Head In The Cloud. (IPES Food)   Challenging the false promise of digital agriculture and cultivating innovation from the ground up.   Today, ‘innovation’ has become synonymous with the rapid development of AI, precision agriculture, bioengineering, and automation. Governments and donors are investing billions in corporate-led digitalization of farming, promoted as essential for climate resilience and productivity.   Head In The Cloud examines how this shift is reshaping power in food systems – concentrating control in the hands of major technology and agribusiness firms, increasing farmer dependency, and reinforcing high-cost, high-input production models.   At the same time, the report documents farmer-led and community-based innovations that are strengthening soil health, conserving agrobiodiversity, adapting crops to climate change, and building resilient local food systems. These bottom-up approaches prioritize autonomy, ecological sustainability, and knowledge-sharing – yet remain underfunded and marginalized in policy and investment decisions.   http://ipes-food.org/report/head-in-the-cloud/   27 Feb. 2026   This week, the Pentagon issued an ultimatum to the AI company Anthropic to drop two key guardrails regarding the use of its AI system, Claude: one barring “mass domestic surveillance,” and another prohibiting the Pentagon from using its tech to build AI-powered weapons that can kill without a human operator.   Worker organizations and Unions representing 700,000 Tech Employees issued the following demand: Amazon, Google, Microsoft must Reject the Pentagon’s Demands:   We are speaking out today because the Pentagon is demanding that Anthropic abandon two major safety guardrails for Claude, which is the only frontier AI model currently deployed in classified Department of War operations. This intimidation is an ultimatum: AI companies can either agree to the Pentagon’s terms, or be designated a “supply chain risk,” or forced to provide the technology through the Defense Production Act.   Those guardrails, which the Pentagon originally agreed to in its contract with Anthropic, are 1) no mass domestic surveillance, and 2) no fully autonomous agents, which means no AI-powered weaponry that can kill people without human oversight.   The Pentagon set a “deadline” for Anthropic to submit to its demands by Friday. As of Thursday afternoon, Anthropic issued a statement saying it will reject the Pentagon’s demands and uphold these guardrails. How the Pentagon reacts remains to be seen, but we know they will rapidly seek to onboard other models without these guardrails in place, regardless of whether they try to force Anthropic to comply.   We are writing to urge our own companies to also refuse to comply should they or the frontier labs they invest in enter into further contracts with the Pentagon.   If any tech company caves to the Pentagon’s demands, War Secretary Pete Hegseth will have won the ability to surveil our communities — –here and abroad — –en masse, at an unprecedented level. He will have the power to build and deploy A.I.-powered drones that kill people without the approval of any human.   Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression.   It is not a given that our companies will do the right thing. xAI just signed a contract with the Pentagon to deploy Grok (that recently referred to itself as Mecha Hitler) in classified environments — as far as we know, without any guardrails. Our own companies are also on the brink of accepting similar contract terms.   Google is in negotiations with the Pentagon to deploy Gemini, its own frontier model, for classified uses. Gemini is already being deployed by the War Department through “GenAI.mil.” Amazon and Microsoft are heavily invested in Anthropic and OpenAI, while OpenAI is also in negotiations with the Department of War. All three companies already host government data through Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS).   We need Congress to pass federal regulation that prohibits the irresponsible and unconstitutional use of AI for violence and mass surveillance. In the absence of federal oversight, we are taking matters into our own hands. As workers who make these companies run, here are our demands:   Executive leadership at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon must reject the Pentagon’s advances and provide workers with transparency about contracts with other repressive state agencies including DHS, CBP, and ICE.   We invite workers to join us in organizing to ensure our leadership does not use our labor for mass surveillance, weaponry, and war.   http://medium.com/@notechforapartheid/jointstatement-5561f1572e46 http://notdivided.org/ http://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-workers-pentagon-anthropic http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/03/us-militarys-dangerous-slide-toward-fully-autonomous-killing http://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/a-propos/20260310-radical-acceleration-in-targenting-cycle-through-ai-points-to-lack-of-human-oversight http://www.democracynow.org/2026/3/18/ai_warfare http://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260308-openai-robotics-chief-quits-over-ai-potential-use-for-war-and-surveillance-artificial-intelligence-pentagon http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/06/moltbook-risk-ai-agents-artificial-life http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00834-z http://counterhate.com/research/killer-apps/ http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/governance-procurement-how-ai-rights-became http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g7k7zdd0zo   Future of Life Institute:   Anthropic vs. DoW: The U.S. Department of War gave AI company Anthropic an ultimatum last week: allow the military unrestricted access to their AI, or lose a $200M contract with the Pentagon and be blacklisted from all government work. Anthropic stood firm that AI shouldn't control weapons or be used for mass surveillance of Americans, which the Pentagon wouldn't concede to.   Vocal support for Anthropic's commitment to their (bare minimum) redlines emerged from employees at rivals such as OpenAI and Google. After the Friday deadline imposed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth came and went, Anthropic’s work with the government was suspended and they were slapped with a national security “supply chain risk” label from the White House - usually reserved for foreign adversaries - which could critically disrupt Anthropic’s other business partnerships. Hegseth also threatened that the government could invoke the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic to serve them their systems tailored “to the military's needs", though it hasn’t yet materialized.   Just hours later on Friday, OpenAI announced they had struck a deal with the Pentagon allowing them to use their models across their classified network.   Anthropic drops safety pledge: The same week as their showdown with Hegseth, news broke that Anthropic is dropping a central pillar of their Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP), in which they pledge to never train an AI system unless they can guarantee in advance that their safety measures are adequate. While they insist they're not abandoning safety, they’re replacing firm pre-deployment guarantees with looser commitments to transparency, risk reports, and “Frontier Safety Roadmaps,” essentially switching from an offensive to defensive strategy. Not a reassuring move from the AI company that’s built their brand on safety.   AI goes nuclear: Especially relevant given the Anthropic-DoW battle, King’s College London ran war game simulations with AI systems from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, and found that in 95% of scenarios they chose to deploy nuclear weapons. The LLMs frequently escalated conflicts to nuclear strikes, showing little hesitation even after being reminded of the catastrophic human consequences. None of them chose full de-escalation or surrender - in fact, when facing defeat they tended to escalate instead.   http://futureoflife.org/cause-area/artificial-intelligence/ http://superintelligence-statement.org/ http://safe.ai/ai-risk http://righttowarn.ai/ http://keepthefuturehuman.ai/ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/godfather-of-ai-raises-odds-of-the-technology-wiping-out-humanity-over-next-30-years   27 Feb. 2026   Stop Killer Robots responds to the Anthropic-Pentagon standoff: Machines must not be allowed to make life and death decisions. It is time for international regulation.   Stop Killer Robots, the global coalition of 270+ civil society organisations calling for new international law on autonomous weapons, has responded to reports that the U.S. Department of Defence pressured Anthropic to adjust the terms of use for the company’s frontier large language model, Claude. Anthropic’s terms currently stipulate that the AI model may not be used in fully autonomous weapon systems – machines capable of selecting and killing targets without human control.   The company has refused to acquiesce to the Pentagon’s demands, on the grounds that “frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons” and that the oversight mechanisms needed to protect civilian lives “don’t exist today.” Although the dispute here is about a large language model AI system, the same reservations should apply to all AI-enabled targeting systems.   Stop Killer Robots warns that the fact that Anthropic has made this caveat about the reliability of frontier AI models is a signal the world cannot afford to ignore. This is a technology company telling its government that it cannot responsibly provide what is being asked of it because the capability to do so safely does not exist, and neither do the guardrails to prevent catastrophic harm if it did.   If, as Anthropic acknowledges, the guardrails don’t exist for autonomous weapons, then the same is true for AI enabled decision support systems which they have not drawn a line against. The focus on fully autonomous weapons deflects from the realities of how militaries and companies are already using AI technologies.   AI-enabled decision support systems, in which humans remain only nominally in the decision-making process, reduce human beings to proxy data points – weight, gender, age, social associations etc. sorted and processed by machines to generate targeting recommendations. When operators defer to those outputs or accept them in incredibly short timeframes, rather than exercising independent judgement, the line between a system that recommends a strike and one that executes it becomes dangerously thin.   Automation bias is not a theoretical concern; it is an operational reality that diminishes human decision making and accountability.   Diplomatic discussions on autonomous weapons have been ongoing for over a decade. Later this year, at the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) Review Conference at the United Nations in Geneva, States will have a concrete opportunity to act, to put guardrails in place on autonomous weapons systems and commence negotiations on new international law. That opportunity must not be squandered. The vast majority of States have now explicitly expressed their support for a new legally binding instrument, and the urgency to move forward cannot be overstated.   It is also essential that there is a strong international response to the integration of AI into the use of force in all its forms. Anything less will leave the most dangerous developments ungoverned and the most vulnerable people unprotected.   Nicole Van Rooijen, Executive Director of Stop Killer Robot explains:   “We are at a pivotal moment for humanity. When the companies building these technologies are themselves refusing to deploy it on safety grounds, it must raise alarm bells for governments and people everywhere. The standards Anthropic has chosen to maintain are a bare minimum of responsible conduct, not cause for celebration. And yet even those basic standards are already under pressure from the most powerful military in the world.”   “The rate of technological development will not wait for diplomacy to find its feet. Every year without binding international law, the gap between what these systems can do and our ability to govern them grows wider. Those who will pay the price are ordinary people: civilians in conflict zones and citizens in both authoritarian and democratic States who will face these dehumanising technologies as their use becomes normalised and human rights, and democratic values eroded.”   “This moment demands political and moral leadership of the highest order. States must come to the table this year not just to talk, but to act. The time for kicking the can down the road has passed, the moment has arrived and what is needed now is new law.”   http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/news/press-release-stop-killer-robots-responds-to-the-anthropic-pentagon-standoff/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/04/28/opening-statement-to-oireachtas-joint-committee-on-artificial-intelligence http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/news/ http://disrupting-peace.captivate.fm/episode/ai-autonomous-weapons-today http://www.icrc.org/en/document/joint-call-un-and-icrc-establish-prohibitions-and-restrictions-autonomous-weapons-systems http://www.icrc.org/en/document/autonomous-weapons-icrc-submits-recommendations-un-secretary-general http://www.icrc.org/en/document/statement-icrc-president-mirjana-spoljaric-vienna-conference-autonomous-weapon-systems-2024 http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/7981/2024/en/ http://theelders.org/news/mary-robinson-reaffirms-elders-call-global-governance-ai   13 Jan. 2026   Malaysia and Indonesia block Elon Musk’s Grok over sexualized AI images. (agencies)   Malaysia and Indonesia have become the first countries to block Grok, the artificial intelligence chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s company xAI, as concerns grow among authorities that it is being misused to generate sexually explicit and nonconsensual images.   There is growing scrutiny of generative AI tools that can produce realistic images, sound and text, and concern that existing safeguards are failing to prevent their abuse.   The Grok chatbot, accessed through Musk’s social media platform X, has been criticized for generating manipulated images, including depictions of women in bikinis or sexually explicit poses, as well as images involving children.   “The government sees nonconsensual sexual deepfakes as a serious violation of human rights, dignity and the safety of citizens in the digital space,” Indonesian Communication and Digital Affairs Minister Meutya Hafid said in a statement.   Scrutiny of Grok is growing, including in the European Union, India, France and the United Kingdom, which said Monday it was moving to criminalize “nudification apps.”   Britain’s media regulator also launched an investigation into whether Grok broke the law by allowing users to share sexualized images of children.   Regulators in the two Southeast Asian nations said existing controls weren’t preventing the creation and spread of fake pornographic content, particularly involving women and children. Indonesia’s government blocked access to Grok on Saturday, followed by Malaysia on Sunday.   Initial findings showed Grok lacks effective safeguards to stop users from creating and distributing pornographic content based on real photos of Indonesian residents, Alexander Sabar, director-general of digital space supervision, said in a statement. He said such practices risk violating privacy and image rights when photos are manipulated or shared without consent.   The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission noted “repeated misuse” of the tool to generate obscene, sexually explicit and nonconsensual manipulated images, including content involving women and children.   The regulator said notices were issued this month to X Corp. and xAI demanding stronger safeguards. “The restriction is imposed as a preventive and proportionate measure while legal and regulatory processes are ongoing,” it said, adding that access will remain blocked until effective safeguards are put in place.   The U.K.'s media regulator said it launched an investigation into whether Grok violated its duty to protect people from illegal content. The regulator, Ofcom, said Grok-generated images of children being sexualized or people being undressed may amount to pornography or child sexual abuse material.   http://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/01/21/elon-musk-donald-trump-social-media-laws-column-00738440 http://www.dw.com/en/eu-opens-probe-into-musks-grok-chatbot/a-75663255 http://www.france24.com/en/technology/20260507-french-prosecutors-seek-charges-against-musk-and-x-over-grok-content http://www.france24.com/en/france/20260203-paris-prosecutor-s-cybercrime-unit-raids-x-s-french-office http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/deepfake-abuse-is-abuse http://www.unicef.org/reports/artificial-intelligence-and-child-sexual-abuse-and-exploitation   * UN Bodies issue Joint Statement on Artificial Intelligence and the Rights of the Child: http://tinyurl.com/yp9nndha   States should strengthen AI governance frameworks to uphold and protect children’s rights. Global organisations are urged to integrate children’s rights across all AI-related policies and strategies. Governments and companies must ensure AI systems are transparent, accountable and designed to protect children. States must prevent and address violence and exploitation of children enabled or amplified by AI.   Stronger, child-centred data protection measures are needed to safeguard privacy within AI systems. AI-driven decisions should prioritise the best interests and holistic development of every child. Inclusive, bias-free AI is essential to ensure all children benefit. Children’s views and experiences should meaningfully inform AI policymaking and system design. AI development should support environmental sustainability while minimising long-term ecological harm to future generations.   * UN Agencies include United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC); United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict; Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on Violence against Children; United Nations Special Rapporteur on the sale, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children; United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI).   http://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/policy-guidance-ai-children http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/05/protection-children-online-needs-be-done-right-un-human-rights-office-issues http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/tools-and-resources/getting-childrens-safety-online-right   Mar. 2026   New Mexico jury says Meta harms children's mental health and safety, violating state law. Social Media Giants face legal action. (NPR, agencies)   A New Mexico jury determined that Meta knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms.   New Mexico jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety, and violated parts of the state's Unfair Practices Act.   The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and agreed that Meta engaged in "unconscionable" trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.   New Mexico's case was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children.   "Meta's house of cards is beginning to fall," said Sacha Haworth, executive director of watchdog group The Tech Oversight Project. "For years, it's been glaringly obvious that Meta has failed to stop sexual predators from turning online interactions into real world harm."   Tech companies have been protected from liability for content posted on their social media platforms under Section 230, a 30-year-old provision of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, as well as a First Amendment shield.   New Mexico prosecutors say Meta still should be responsible for its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that is harmful for children.   The state’s attorney general, Raul Torrez, sued Meta in 2023, accusing it of misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms. The company’s lax safety protocols allowed sexual predators to contact minors, the lawsuit added. The jury, in State District Court in Santa Fe, agreed, ordering Meta to pay $375 million in damages for violating state consumer protection laws.   “The jury’s verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta’s choice to put profits over kids’ safety,” Mr. Torrez said in a statement. “Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees and lied to the public about what they knew.”   Mr. Torrez said he would ask the judge, Bryan Biedscheid, for additional financial penalties during a bench trial that is scheduled to start May 4. Mr. Torrez also plans to ask the court to force changes to Meta’s apps to make them safer for young users.   http://www.npr.org/2026/03/24/g-s1-115019/new-mexico-meta-children-mental-health http://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/technology/meta-new-mexico-child-safety-violations.html http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/24/meta-new-mexico-jury http://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict http://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html http://techoversight.org/2026/03/25/the-tech-oversight-project-heralds-verdict-in-social-media-addiction-trials-as-an-earthquake-for-big-tech/ http://techoversight.org/bigtechontrial/ http://www.citizen.org/news/historic-california-verdict-against-meta-and-google-marks-social-medias-big-tobacco-moment/ http://socialmediavictims.org/blog/meta-and-youtube-held-responsible-for-harm-to-vulnerable-users-in-first-of-its-kind-trial   Dec. 2025   Accountability for harms arising from algorithmic systems. (Amnesty International)   With the widespread use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making systems (ADMs) that impact our everyday lives, it is crucial that rights defenders, activists and communities are equipped to shed light on the serious implications these systems have on our human rights, Amnesty International said ahead of the launch of its Algorithmic Accountability toolkit.   The toolkit draws on Amnesty International’s investigations, campaigns, media and advocacy in Denmark, Sweden, Serbia, France, India, United Kingdom, Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), the United States and the Netherlands. It provides a ‘how to’ guide for investigating, uncovering and seeking accountability for harms arising from algorithmic systems that are becoming increasingly embedded in our everyday lives specifically in the public sector realms of welfare, policing, healthcare, and education.   Regardless of the jurisdiction in which these technologies are deployed, a common outcome from their rollout is not “efficiency” or “improving” societies—as many government officials and corporations claim—but rather bias, exclusion and human rights abuses.   “The toolkit is designed for anyone looking to investigate or challenge the use of algorithmic and AI systems in the public sector, including civil society organizations (CSOs), journalists, impacted people or community organizations. It is designed to be adaptable and versatile to multiple settings and contexts.   “Building our collective power to investigate and seek accountability for harmful AI systems is crucial to challenging abusive practices by states and companies and meeting this current moment of supercharged investments in AI. Given how these systems can enable mass surveillance, undermine our right to social protection, restrict our freedom to peaceful protest and perpetuate exclusion, discrimination and bias across society,” said Damini Satija, Programme Director at Amnesty Tech.   The toolkit introduces a multi-pronged approach based on the learnings of Amnesty International’s investigations in this area over the last three years, as well as learnings from collaborations with key partners. This approach not only provides tools and practical templates to research these opaque systems and their resulting human rights violations, but it also lays out comprehensive tactics for those working to end these abusive systems by seeking change and accountability via campaigning, strategic communications, advocacy or strategic litigation.   One of the many case studies the toolkit draws on is Amnesty International’s investigation into Denmark’s welfare system, exposing how the Danish welfare authority Udbetaling Danmark (UDK)’s AI-powered welfare system fuels mass surveillance and risks discriminating against people with disabilities, low-income individuals, migrants, refugees, and marginalized racial groups through its use of AI tools to flag individuals for social benefits fraud investigations.   The investigation could not have been possible without the collaboration with impacted communities, journalists and local civil society organisations and in that spirit, the toolkit is premised on deep collaboration between different disciplinary groups.   The toolkit situates human rights law as a critically valuable component of algorithmic accountability work, especially given this is a gap in the ethical and responsible AI fields and audit methods’.   Amnesty International’s method ultimately emphasises collaborative work, while harnessing the collective influence of a multi-method approach. Communities and their agency to drive accountability remains at the heart of the process.   “This issue is even more urgent today, given rampant unchecked claims and experimentation around the supposed benefits of using AI in public service delivery. State actors are backing enormous investments in AI development and infrastructure and giving corporations a free hand to pursue their lucrative interests, regardless of the human rights impacts now and further down the line,” said Damini Satija.   “Through this toolkit, we aim to democratize knowledge and enable civil society organizations, investigators, journalists, and impacted individuals to uncover these systems and the industries that produce them, demand accountability, and bring an end to the abuses enabled by these technologies.”   http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2025/12/algorithmic-accountability-toolkit/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/12/global-amnesty-international-launches-an-algorithmic-accountability-toolkit-to-enable-investigators-rights-defenders-and-activists-to-hold-powerfu/ http://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/regulation-is-crucial-for-responsible-ai http://thebulletin.org/the-ai-power-trip/ http://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.r2606 http://www.openglobalrights.org/will-human-rights-guide-technological-development/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/why-regulation-is-essential-to-tame-techs-rush-for-ai/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-03/google-ai-overview-tobacco-companies/106731564 http://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2025/10/corporate-geopolitics-when-billionaires-rival-states http://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/21/technology/inside-amazons-plans-to-replace-workers-with-robots.html http://www.kcl.ac.uk/shall-we-play-a-game http://safe.ai/ai-risk http://ai-frontiers.org/articles/the-evidence-for-ai-consciousness-today http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/enabled-emissions-how-ai-helps-to-supercharge-oil-and-gas-production/ http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/ai-chatbots-share-climate-disinformation-to-susceptible-users/ http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/procurement-and-deployment-artificial-intelligence-must-be-aligned-human http://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/civicspace/resources/brief-data-privacy-ai-report-rev.pdf http://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/10/how-china-views-ai-risks-and-what-to-do-about-them http://www.dw.com/en/middle-east-using-ai-to-stop-dissent-before-it-even-starts/a-76095344 http://www.dw.com/en/dark-patterns-investigating-online-manipulation/a-77072137 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/06/tiktok-pro-republican-algorithm-2024-election http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10447-1   http://pulitzercenter.org/journalism/initiatives/ai-accountability-network http://genevasolutions.news/science-tech/why-every-country-must-prepare-for-a-digital-pandemic http://www.accessnow.org/issue/artificial-intelligence/ http://euobserver.com/topic/ai http://techjusticelaw.org/press http://globalvoices.org/special/human-perspectives-on-ai/ http://pwd.org.au/disability-representative-organisations-call-for-transparency-on-computer-generated-ndis-plans/ http://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/acoss-statement-on-the-robodebt-settlement/ http://theconversation.com/people-are-getting-their-news-from-ai-and-its-altering-their-views-269354 http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/14/6/391 http://icct.nl/publication/reading-between-lines-importance-human-moderators-online-implicit-extremist-content http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/09/unga80-lies-spread-faster-than-facts/   http://www.citizen.org/news/bipartisan-group-of-state-lawmakers-condemn-federal-ai-preemption-efforts/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/12/16/trump-administration-takes-aim-at-ai-accountability-laws http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/has-technology-outpaced-human-rights-frameworks http://www.democracynow.org/2026/1/1/empire_of_ai_karen_hao_on http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/the-rise-of-the-tech-oligarchy/ http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/rise-of-the-tech-oligarchy-part-ii/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/amnesty-launches-breaking-up-with-big-tech-briefing/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/POL30/0226/2025/en/ http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-025-02371-1 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-025-02623-0   http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2024/10/08/feeding-the-machine-seven-links-between-ai-and-inequalities/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2024/05/01/todays-colonial-data-grab-is-deepening-global-inequalities/ http://www.openglobalrights.org/digital-id-from-governance-by-technology-to-governance-of-technologies/ http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/our-work/carr-commentary/notes-new-frontier-power http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/how-chinese-ai-models-impact-labor-rights-and http://www.technologyreview.com/2024/05/10/1092293/ai-systems-are-getting-better-at-tricking-us/ http://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/greenwashing-and-bothsidesism-ai-chatbot-answers-about-fossil-fuels-role-climate-change/ http://socialmediavictims.org/character-ai-lawsuits http://chrgj.org/transformer-states/ http://www.gen-ai.witness.org/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/un-expert-calls-regulation-neurotechnologies-protect-right-privacy http://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/news/2024-kofi-annan-lecture-delivered-by-maria-ressa/
	Peace Report warns of a world of warlords by German institutes for peace and conflict research Germany/ Norway   In their 2026 Peace Report, four leading German institutes for peace and conflict research analyse the collapse of the international order:   States are flouting international law and are increasingly resorting to violence to assert their interests.   Pillars of international peacekeeping, such as the United Nations and development cooperation, are in a fundamental crisis.   At the same time, new technologies are transforming warfare and arms control.   In their annual Peace Report, the peace and conflict researchers conclude that military force has established itself as a regular instrument of international politics:   They observe that governments act like state warlords, disregarding international rules and using force to assert political, economic and territorial interests.   The dynamics and methods of these new warlords are particularly evident in the interventions of the United States, Russia and Israel, as well as in the regional power projections of Pakistan, Turkey, Ethiopia and the Gulf monarchies.   To contain the current dynamics of violence, they call on Germany to consistently adhere to international law and use its role in Europe to strengthen multilateral institutions and push for new alliances in support of the rules-based international order.   Conflicts at record level:   The period between 2021 and 2024 marks the most violent phase since the end of the Cold War, according to the 2026 Peace Report: In that time, 61 armed conflicts involving at least one state actor were recorded in 36 countries. At the same time, the number of displaced people worldwide rose to over 120 million in April 2025.   The 2026 Peace Report concludes that states such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are playing out their rivalries in crisis regions, often acting simultaneously as party to the conflict and as mediator. This blurring of the lines between intervention and mediation hinders durable peace settlements and perpetuates existing conflicts.   The United Nations at a crossroads   The United Nations (UN) is in the midst of a deep structural crisis: Rivalries between major powers are blocking key decision-making processes, particularly in the Security Council.   At the same time, funding cuts and competing political frameworks are undermining the UN’s authority. Nevertheless, there is no viable alternative to the organisation. They advocate for the German government to work with middle powers and smaller states to realise stable funding and reforms.   Development cooperation as the key to sustainable peace   Development cooperation and, in particular, humanitarian aid are under massive pressure due to drastic cuts. Meanwhile, the scope of development cooperation is expanding as conflicts increase and climate change intensifies.   Cuts to international aid contribute to instability in fragile states and hinder the effective prevention of violent conflicts, warns the 2026 Peace Report.   The researchers recommend that Germany advocate at European and international levels for better coordination and effectiveness of development cooperation programmes.   Shaping sustainable transitions to peace   The 2026 Peace Report emphasises that ceasefires alone do not secure peace. Sustainable solutions require credible security guarantees, arrangements consistent with international law, a controlled approach to sanctions and the establishment of stable state structures. This is demonstrated by the wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Syria.   For a stable peace, measures for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration, as well as reconstruction, must be built into negotiations from the outset.   The German government must work with like-minded states to preserve and strengthen the United Nations’ (UN) capacity to act in the fields of prevention, mediation, and peace, and to enhance the effectiveness of arms control institutions.   Germany must provide strong political and financial support to the International Criminal Court and United Nations humanitarian coordination mechanisms.   New technologies exacerbate arms race dynamics   Technological innovations such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, cyber capabilities and biotechnology are driving global arms race dynamics and elude established forms of control. AI, in particular, accelerates military processes and intensifies cyberattacks and disinformation.   However, new technologies also offer opportunities for improved arms control. Internationally coordinated regulations are therefore necessary to strengthen international security.   Domestic peace in Germany under pressure   The 2026 Peace Report examines the political climate in Germany and finds that anti-Muslim racism is structurally entrenched and reinforced by security policy discourses. Antisemitism is widespread in German society and must be addressed without being solely attributed to Muslim communities, according to the 2026 Peace Report.   Democratic parties should counter polarising and racist discourse in areas such as migration and asylum policy. Otherwise, they will be advancing the agenda of authoritarian and far-right parties.   Containing the dynamics of violence   Without decisive countermeasures, it will no longer be possible to prevent the continued erosion of the multilateral order and its regulatory frameworks. The behavior of the new warlords has already given us a glimpse of what will come next: the normalization of military force as a routine political instrument and structural advantages for those actors who are willing and able to use it. Those who lack access to such means—or who choose not to employ them—risk permanently losing their security and autonomy.   This trajectory is not inevitable. But preventing it requires decisive action now. We must begin by clearly identifying and publicly condemning blatant violations of rules, regardless of whether these are committed by allies or adversaries. Only then can a rules-based order be upheld.   If breaches of international law are tolerated this undermines the credibility on which States foreign policy rests. Such inconsistency may, whether intentionally or not, contribute to the continued erosion of the international order.   That said, condemnation does not necessarily lead to compliance with the rules. This requires institutions and mechanisms of conflict regulation that are both recognized and utilized by the majority of states. The United Nations is one such institution.   While the UN Security Council will no longer be a viable force for peace in the foreseeable future, the UN General Assembly could very well be, provided that those member states committed to upholding the international order are willing to use their resources to strengthen it. This includes putting a stop to cuts to development cooperation.   At the same time, development cooperation must also be understood in strategic terms; its added value in this regard lies in strengthening trust in partnerships and the international order. An equally important task, especially in this era of escalating arms races, is to rebuild and sustain the foundations needed for a robust arms control regime. This requires modernizing arms control systems and making arms control mechanisms more flexible and adaptable.   * The Peace Report is an annual publication by the Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies, the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, the Institute for Development and Peace at the University of Duisburg-Essen, and the Leibniz Institute for Peace Research.   http://www.ifsh.de/en/news-detail/the-2026-peace-report-warns-of-a-world-ruled-by-warlords http://www.friedensgutachten.de/en http://www.dw.com/en/peace-report-are-modern-warlords-in-power/a-77478186   June 2026   Conflicts between states at the highest level since World War II. (PRIO)   The report, Conflict Trends: A Global Overview, 1946–2025, documents eight interstate conflicts in 2025 – twice as many as the previous year and the highest number recorded since 1946.   “The return of interstate conflict at this scale is deeply worrying,” warned Siri Aas Rustad, Research Director at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and lead author of the report.   “For decades, civil wars dominated global conflict. Now we are witnessing a dangerous resurgence of direct confrontations between states, driven by geopolitical rivalry, border disputes and regional escalation, particularly in the Middle East.”   The conflicts include Russia’s war against Ukraine, renewed violence between India and Pakistan, escalating tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, clashes between Thailand and Cambodia, and multiple interstate confrontations linked to the expanding regional conflict involving Israel, Iran, Yemen and the United States.   The report is based on data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, and provides a global overview of state-based conflicts, non-state conflicts and one-sided violence.   2025 among the deadliest years since the Cold War   Beyond the rise in interstate conflict, the report finds that a staggering 245,000 people were killed in battle-related violence in 2025, making it the third deadliest year since 1989. The number of battle deaths increased from 188,000 in 2024.   The sharp increase was driven primarily by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war in Gaza and escalating violence in Sudan, including the siege and massacre of El-Fasher City.   In total, 65 state-based conflicts were recorded across 35 countries in 2025 – also the highest number since records began in 1946.   According to the report, the world has now experienced more than a decade of persistently high levels of violence. Every year since 2013 has been more violent than nearly every post-Cold War year that came before it.   The report also highlights a growing concentration of violence in a smaller number of countries. While 65 conflicts were recorded globally, they were concentrated in just 35 countries, with many experiencing several overlapping wars and insurgencies simultaneously.   Myanmar and Israel each experienced five separate conflicts in 2025, while Afghanistan, Cameroon, Mali, Nigeria and Pakistan all experienced multiple conflicts.   This increasing complexity creates major challenges for peacebuilding, diplomacy and aid operations.   “Conflicts today are increasingly interconnected,” said Rustad. “They involve more actors, overlapping fronts and greater regional spillover. That makes them far harder to resolve and significantly increases the risks of wider regional wars.”   The growing complexity of conflict is creating mounting challenges for diplomacy, peacebuilding and humanitarian operations.   Sudan records highest level of civilian killings since Rwanda genocide   The report documents a dramatic rise in one-sided violence against civilians. Over 76,000 people were killed in one-sided violence in 2025 – the highest number recorded since the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Most of the killings occurred in Sudan, particularly during the massacre of El-Fasher City in North Darfur in October 2025, when tens of thousands of civilians were killed.   Africa and the Middle East remain epicentres of conflict   Africa remained the region with the highest number of both state-based and non-state conflicts in 2025, while the Middle East recorded its highest number of state-based conflicts ever. Asia also reached its highest level of state-based conflict since the mid-1990s.   According to the report, these trends suggest that the rise in global violence is not confined to one region, but reflects a broader deterioration in international security. “The data points to a world moving in the wrong direction: more wars, more internationalized conflicts and far higher human costs,” said Rustad.   http://www.prio.org/news/3719 http://www.prio.org/events/9296
	View more stories