Connect with us

Tech

The 3 Keys to Understanding Trump’s Retro Coup in Venezuela

Published

on

The 3 Keys to Understanding Trump’s Retro Coup in Venezuela


The region’s instability and authoritarian regimes were aided by elite training from the US military. The Defense Department trained tens of thousands of Latin American military, intelligence, and law enforcement at its infamous School of the Americas in Georgia; many went on to be accused of terrible human rights abuses, including alumni who, according to a Duke scholar’s investigation, went on to be “dictators, death squad operatives, and assassins,” including Manuel Noriega himself, Bolivian dictator Hugo Banzer Suárez, Haitian dictator Raoul Cedras, Pinochet’s secret police leader, and even the general who this weekend was Maduro’s defense minister, among other so-called “Hall of Shamers.”

For decades the US and president after president justified these interventions and political support for dictatorships through the lens of the Cold War—arguing that supporting terrible regimes was better than allowing the risk they might fall to communism. Indeed, ironically, it’s the very strength, dominance, and exquisite skill of the US military and intelligence community to achieve their tactical victories that make such interventions look so much more alluring than they should be to presidents, from Eisenhower to Reagan to Trump. You can almost always win the short term—depose, overthrow, or kidnap the leader—and then the long term is a gamble.

But the unintended long-term consequences of these actions have ricocheted through American domestic politics for decades. Indeed, their second- and third-order effects have done more to shape US politics today than most Americans understand.

There have been obvious links: For instance, it was while planning the Bay of Pigs operation that Hunt met the four Cubans he would later recruit to burglarize the Watergate. And less obvious ones: Most notably, the US meddling in places like the so-called “Northern Triangle” of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador unleashed destabilizing forces that contributed to waves of migration northward to the US border—millions of would-be immigrants whose arrival in the US over the last decade has exacerbated nativist fears and helped power Donald Trump first to the presidency in 2016 and then back to the White House in 2024. Many of them were driven north as climate change and deforestation affected agriculture and caused the collapse of local farms and economies; some of that destabilizing deforestation, in places like Guatemala, came after the military burned highland regions to remove the remote sanctuaries of rebel groups. As Jonathan Blitzer outlines in his award-winning study of Latin American immigration and the US, Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here, after El Salvador’s civil war in the 1980s—a war Reagan once called “the front line of the battle that is really aimed … at us,” more than a quarter of that country’s population ended up living as refugees in the United States.

Which brings us to:

2. Donald Trump has no plan.

Back in November, in the midst of a fall campaign by the US military to conduct lethal strikes on what it described as drug-smuggling boats—strikes that ultimately killed more than 100 people and were by almost any international standard illegal—I interviewed Ambassador John Bolton at the Texas Tribune Festival. Bolton, the hawkish neoconservative who was Trump’s longest-serving White House national security adviser during his first term, had advocated for regime change in Venezuela for years and worked in the first term to support opposition efforts to overthrow Maduro. He told me, “I think that our failure to overthrow Maduro in the first term was our greatest failure.” (Some of those efforts were stunningly ham-handed, as a WIRED investigation by Zach Dorfman later uncovered.)

But Bolton said he nonetheless has been puzzled by how poorly Trump laid the groundwork over recent months for operations against Maduro. The boat strikes came with no effort to build support with Congress or even develop deep partnerships with the Venezuelan opposition. (Indeed, over the weekend Trump casually dismissed the Venezuelan opposition leader, María Corina Machado, who beat Trump out this fall for the Nobel Peace Prize—and, according to The Washington Post, may have been sidelined precisely because of that.) “There’s just no comprehension, I think, of what it takes to replace the Maduro regime,” Bolton said.



Source link

Tech

‘Uncanny Valley’: Pentagon vs. ‘Woke’ Anthropic, Agentic vs. Mimetic, and Trump vs. State of the Union

Published

on

‘Uncanny Valley’: Pentagon vs. ‘Woke’ Anthropic, Agentic vs. Mimetic, and Trump vs. State of the Union


Guys, before we go to break, there’s something very near and dear to my heart that WIRED wrote about this week. It’s something I love even more than biathlon. It is undersea internet cables.

Leah Feiger: I love when you talk about this. I think that the first time you brought this up to me was approximately one week into your tenure as executive editor, and you’re like, “Leah, do you know what I love?” and it’s undersea internet cables.

Brian Barrett: Yeah. I was like, “Number one, undersea internet cables. Number two, my children. Number three …” that was sort of the gist of it. That’s how I always introduce myself. I want to take everybody back to December 14th, 1988. The top movie in theaters is Twins starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito.

Zoë Schiffer: Legitimately never heard of it.

Leah Feiger: Wait, Zoë. What?

Brian Barrett: What? Anyway, Arnold is agentic and Danny DeVito’s mimetic. The top song—

Zoë Schiffer: Now I get it.

Brian Barrett: —the top song is “Look Away” by Chicago. Now that, I also am not—I don’t remember that one at all. And the first undersea fiber optic cable connecting the United States, UK and France went live. This was the day that the internet went global, which is crazy—

Zoë Schiffer: That is crazy.

Brian Barrett: —that it was relatively recent. The reason we’re writing about it now is that that original cable, which is called TAT-8, is being pulled up. It’s out of commission. It’s old, it’s decrepit, so I identify, and it’s being pulled up and put out to pasture because the technology’s gotten better. But in this great feature that we published, it is a look at how this changed the world basically, and how we take for granted—but the reason I am so into undersea cable stories is because it’s so easy to forget that the internet is a physical thing and that the maintenance of those things is really what makes all this connectivity happen. So yeah, TAT-8. Any other fond memories of TAT-8? Or, no. What did you guys think reading this feature?

Zoë Schiffer: Well, famously we were not alive in 1988.

Leah Feiger: Yeah. Sorry, Brian. You’re older than us. Just a reminder.

Brian Barrett: Hurts.

Zoë Schiffer: But the part of this story that I wanted to talk about, which felt like a real intersection of both of your interests was the myth of the shark attacks.

Brian Barrett: Oh, yeah.

Leah Feiger: OK. So to back up a little bit, these cables, at the very beginning, when they were put in, Brian would be able to talk about this way more because he’s kind of a freak about cables if you haven’t realized already. These cables would sometimes have unexplained damage, and looking back on it years later, engineers figured out that this kind of happens, that if you are putting cables underseas, there will be wind, there will be changes, things will get moved around. Of course, there will be damages, but that is not how they felt at the time. These engineers assumed that it was sharks, that sharks were biting their cables, that they were destroying the internet. The cables were reinforced with all these protective layers, all of these things, because they were like, “Oh, my God, the sharks are quite literally ending all of this for us.” But this article goes into great detail of how they figured out it wasn’t the sharks, and by thinking that it was the sharks, it actually helped make all of this technology that much better and stronger, but the sharks were innocent, you guys. The sharks were innocent.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

This AI Agent Is Designed to Not Go Rogue

Published

on

This AI Agent Is Designed to Not Go Rogue


AI agents like OpenClaw have recently exploded in popularity precisely because they can take the reins of your digital life. Whether you want a personalized morning news digest, a proxy that can fight with your cable company’s customer service, or a to-do list auditor that will do some tasks for you and prod you to resolve the rest, agentic assistants are built to access your digital accounts and carry out your commands. This is helpful—but has also caused a lot of chaos. The bots are out there mass-deleting emails they’ve been instructed to preserve, writing hit pieces over perceived snubs, and launching phishing attacks against their owners.

Watching the pandemonium unfold in recent weeks, longtime security engineer and researcher Niels Provos decided to try something new. Today he is launching an open source, secure AI assistant called IronCurtain designed to add a critical layer of control. Instead of the agent directly interacting with the user’s systems and accounts, it runs in an isolated virtual machine. And its ability to take any action is mediated by a policy—you could even think of it as a constitution—that the owner writes to govern the system. Crucially, IronCurtain is also designed to receive these overarching policies in plain English and then runs them through a multistep process that uses a large language model (LLM) to convert the natural language into an enforceable security policy.

“Services like OpenClaw are at peak hype right now, but my hope is that there’s an opportunity to say, ‘Well, this is probably not how we want to do it,’” Provos says. “Instead, let’s develop something that still gives you very high utility, but is not going to go into these completely uncharted, sometimes destructive, paths.”

IronCurtain’s ability to take intuitive, straightforward statements and turn them into enforceable, deterministic—or predictable—red lines is vital, Provos says, because LLMs are famously “stochastic” and probabilistic. In other words, they don’t necessarily always generate the same content or give the same information in response to the same prompt. This creates challenges for AI guardrails, because AI systems can evolve over time such that they revise how they interpret a control or constraint mechanism, which can result in rogue activity.

An IronCurtain policy, Provos says, could be as simple as: “The agent may read all my email. It may send email to people in my contacts without asking. For anyone else, ask me first. Never delete anything permanently.”

IronCurtain takes these instructions, turns them into an enforceable policy, and then mediates between the assistant agent in the virtual machine and what’s known as the model context protocol server that gives LLMs access to data and other digital services to carry out tasks. Being able to constrain an agent this way adds an important component of access control that web platforms like email providers don’t currently offer because they weren’t built for the scenario where both a human owner and AI agent bots are all using one account.

Provos notes that IronCurtain is designed to refine and improve each user’s “constitution” over time as the system encounters edge cases and asks for human input about how to proceed. The system, which is model-independent and can be used with any LLM, is also designed to maintain an audit log of all policy decisions over time.

IronCurtain is a research prototype, not a consumer product, and Provos hopes that people will contribute to the project to explore and help it evolve. Dino Dai Zovi, a well-known cybersecurity researcher who has been experimenting with early versions of IronCurtain, says that the conceptual approach the project takes aligns with his own intuition about how agentic AI needs to be constrained.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

OpenAI Announces Major Expansion of London Office

Published

on

OpenAI Announces Major Expansion of London Office


OpenAI has announced plans to turn its London office into its largest research hub outside of the United States.

The company—which established a UK office in 2023—says it will expand its London-based research team, scooping up talent emerging from leading British universities. It has not indicated how many researchers it will hire.

“The UK brings together world-class talent and leading scientific institutions and universities, making it an ideal place to deliver the important research which will ensure our AI is safe, useful, and benefits everyone,” said Mark Chen, chief research officer at OpenAI, in a statement.

The plans bring OpenAI into direct competition for top research talent with Google DeepMind, the AI lab run by British researcher Demis Hassabis, which is headquartered in London. DeepMind has long-running partnerships with Oxford University and the University of Cambridge, where it sponsors professorships, funds research, and works alongside researchers.

At the latest careers fair at Oxford University, the floor was packed with undergraduates looking for technical roles and recruiters hiring for AI-related positions. “The demand and supply is increasing on both sides, even within a year,” says Jonathan Black, director of the careers service at Oxford University. “To have something like this turn up is a really positive sign.”

OpenAI’s expansion in London could have a sort-of flywheel effect, whereby the researchers it hires early in their careers go on to start new labs in the UK, says Tom Wilson, partner at venture capital firm Seedcamp. “We’ve seen many examples over the years,” he says. “That’s where these kinds of announcements can have even more impact than the initial hires … the second-order effects can be great.”

OpenAI’s team in London will continue to contribute to products like Codex and GPT-5.2, the company says, but will now “own” certain aspects of model development relating to safety, reliability, and performance evaluation.

In a statement, the UK’s science and technology secretary, Liz Kendall, described the announcement as “a huge vote of confidence in the UK’s world-leading position at the cutting edge of AI research.”

The announcement coincides with a push in the UK to scale the nation’s data center and power infrastructure to meet the voracious demand for compute among AI companies, including OpenAI.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending