• Oct. 11, 2025, 8:00 AM EDTBy Alicia Victoria…
  • Palestinians Begin Return Home As Ceasefire Takes Effect
  • Oct. 11, 2025, 8:48 AM EDT / Updated Oct. 11, 2025,…
  • Inside the scramble to save lives as deadly…

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Sept. 27, 2025, 7:30 AM EDTBy Jared PerloNEW YORK — The United States clashed with world leaders over artificial intelligence at the United Nations General Assembly this week, rejecting calls for global oversight as many pushed for new collaborative frameworks.While many heads of state, corporate leaders and prominent figures endorsed a need for urgent international collaboration on AI, the U.S. delegation criticized the role of the U.N. and pushed back on the idea of centralized governance of AI.Representing the U.S. in Wednesday’s Security Council meeting on AI, Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said, “We totally reject all efforts by international bodies to assert centralized control and global governance of AI.”The path to a flourishing future powered by AI does not lie in “bureaucratic management,” Kratsios said, but instead in “the independence and sovereignty of nations.”While Kratsios shot down the idea of combined AI governance, President Donald Trump said in his speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday that the White House will be “pioneering an AI verification system that everyone can trust” to enforce the Biological Weapons Convention.“Hopefully, the U.N. can play a constructive role, and it will also be one of the early projects under AI,” Trump said. AI “could be one of the great things ever, but it also can be dangerous, but it can be put to tremendous use and tremendous good.”.In a statement to NBC News, a State Department spokesperson said, “The United States supports like-minded nations working together to encourage the development of AI in line with our shared values. The US position in international bodies is to vigorously advocate for international AI governance approaches that promote innovation, reflect American values, and counter authoritarian influence.”The comments rejecting collaborative efforts around AI governance stood in stark contrast to many of the initiatives being launched at the General Assembly.On Thursday, the U.N. introduced the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, the U.N.’s first body dedicated to AI governance involving all member states. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said the body would “lay the cornerstones of a global AI ecosystem that can keep pace with the fastest-moving technology in human history.” Speaking after Guterres, Nobel Prize recipient Daron Acemoglu outlined the growing stakes of AI’s rapid development, arguing that “AI is the biggest threat that humanity has faced.”But in an interview with NBC News, Amandeep Singh Gill, the U.N.’s special envoy for digital and emerging technologies, told NBC News that the United States’ critical perception of the U.N.’s role in international AI governance was misconstrued.“I think it’s a misrepresentation to say that the U.N. is somehow getting into the regulation of AI,” Gill said. “These are not top-down power grabs in terms of regulation. The regulation stays where regulation can be done in sovereign jurisdictions.”Instead, the U.N.’s mechanisms “will provide platforms for international cooperation on AI governance,” Gill said.In remarks immediately following Kratsios’ comments, China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Ma Zhaoxu said, “It is vital to jointly foster an open, inclusive, fair and nondiscriminatory environment for technological development and firmly oppose unilateralism and protectionism.”“We support the U.N. playing a central role in AI governance,” Ma said.One day after Kratsios’ remarks at the Security Council, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez seemed to push back on Kratsios and gave full-throated support for international cooperation on AI and the U.N.’s role in AI governance.“We need to coordinate a shared vision of AI at a global level, with the U.N. as the legitimate and inclusive forum to forge consensus around common interests,” Sánchez said. “The time is now, when multilateralism is being most questioned and attacked, that we need to reaffirm how suitable it is in addressing challenges such as those represented by AI.”Reacting to the week’s developments, Renan Araujo, director of programs for the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, told NBC News that “no one wants to see a burdensome, bureaucratic governance structure, and the U.S. has succeeded in starting bilateral and minilateral coalitions. At the same time, we should expect AI-related challenges to become more transnational in nature as AI capabilities become more advanced.”This is not the first time the U.N. has addressed AI, having passed the Global Digital Compact last year. The compact laid the foundation for the AI dialogue and for an independent international scientific panel to evaluate AI’s abilities, risks and pathways forward. Guterres announced that nominations to this panel are now open.While Thursday’s event marked the launch of the global dialogue and panel, the dialogue will have its first full meeting in Geneva in summer 2026, in tandem with the International Telecommunication Union’s annual AI for Good summit. The dialogue’s exact functions and first actions will be charted out over the coming months.Jared PerloJared Perlo is a writer and reporter at NBC News covering AI. He is currently supported by the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism.

admin - Latest News - September 27, 2025
admin
14 views 11 secs 0 Comments




The United States clashed with world leaders over artificial intelligence at the United Nations General Assembly this week.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Sept. 27, 2025, 5:30 AM EDTBy Berkeley Lovelace Jr.For people who rely on certain prescription drugs, including weight loss, asthma and cancer medications, President Donald Trump’s post announcing 100% tariffs on foreign brand-name drugs offers little clarity on when — or if — medications might see price hikes. “Starting October 1st, 2025, we will be imposing a 100% Tariff on any branded or patented Pharmaceutical Product, unless a Company IS BUILDING their Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plant in America,” Trump said on Truth Social late Thursday. “‘IS BUILDING’ will be defined as, ‘breaking ground’ and/or ‘under construction.’ There will, therefore, be no Tariff on these Pharmaceutical Products if construction has started.”Experts say Trump’s post raises a lot of questions. Here are five major ones. What drugs will be impacted?Trump’s post doesn’t specify whether brand-name drugmakers with an existing U.S. plant would be exempt, whether that exemption would include all their products, or whether it would only be for the drugs manufactured at the U.S. site. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, makers of the weight loss drugs Wegovy and Zepound, respectively, have announced plans to invest in U.S. manufacturing. But it’s unclear if their intent to invest will warrant an exemption. On Tuesday, Lilly announced plans for a $6.5 billion manufacturing facility in Houston that will produce Zepbound and its other GLP-1 drug, Mounjaro, following a recent commitment to build a $5 billion plant near Richmond, Virginia. Novo Nordisk, a Danish company, said in June it would spend $4.1 billion to construct a second GLP-1 fill-finish plant in Clayton, North Carolina.AstraZeneca, which makes the asthma drug Symbicort, also announced in July that it will invest $50 billion over the next five years to expand its research and development and manufacturing footprint in the U.S. Many other popular brand-name drugs, however, are primarily manufactured overseas, particularly in Europe, said Rena Conti, an associate professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business.Botox, made by Allergen, and the cancer drug Keytruda from drugmaker Merck are made in Ireland. (Keytruda’s manufacturing has increasingly moved to the United States in recent years, but it’s not clear if that would earn an exemption from Trump’s tariffs.)Others, including some for blood and lung cancers, as well as vaccines, are made in places like India and China, Conti said. “I think what’s most at risk here are branded products that come from China and India,” she said. The E.U. and Japan already have trade agreements in place that cover pharmaceuticals, she added, and it’s unclear whether the new tariff will supersede that. Will patients see prices increase?Only 1 in 10 of the prescriptions filled in the U.S. are for brand-name drugs; the vast majority are for generics, which are much cheaper and will not be affected by these tariffs. Whether patients see price increases will depend on how many drugmakers receive exemptions — and on whether companies choose to pass those costs on to patients at the pharmacy counter, said Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. ​​“Ultimately, tariffs are taxes on patients,” Kesselheim said, “and to the extent that drug companies see increases in cost due to tariffs, they will pass those costs on to patients.”Some companies may decide not to pass the costs along. So far, the 15% tariffs on imports from the E.U. haven’t translated into big price hikes for U.S. patients, Conti noted. To be sure, a 100% tariff would be far more costly for a company. Price hikes may not start right away, as drugmakers find out whether they qualify for an exemption. There also might be a lag since U.S. law prevents drugmakers from increasing the price of drugs faster than inflation.“What if you’re doing updates to the plant you currently have? What if you’re planning a facility? Do those count?” Kesselheim said. “It’s all very ambiguous.”Some patients may not notice additional price hikes at all, given how costly brand-name drugs already are in the U.S., said Arthur Caplan, the head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City. “I can certainly predict that some patients will immediately feel price increases that will shock them on some of these drugs,” Caplan said.Could insurers absorb the costs?Insurers and middlemen, known as pharmacy benefit managers, could try to negotiate drugmakers or absorb some of the tariff-related costs, Caplan said.It’s more likely, however, that they’d pass it on to patients in the short term, potentially in the form of a larger copay, he said.It’s not only patients with private insurance that should be worried about price hikes, Kesselheim said. Those who get their drugs covered through government health programs could also see price increases.“The government is the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the market, through Medicare, Medicaid and the VA, so it’s really the government or government payers that are going to see the largest impact on price increases,” he said. Will tariffs spur more U.S. drug manufacturing?It’s unlikely, Kesselheim said. The decision to build a plant “is a complicated and expensive one” that requires several regulatory hurdles and years of planning.Conti noted that by the time new manufacturing plants are completed, Trump would likely be out of office.“It is somewhere between two years and five years to get new production facilities built,” she said, “and it can be in the millions of dollars depending on whether the product that you’re making is a small molecule drug or a biologic.”Even putting money back into an existing plant isn’t quick.“If you want to switch a line or retool a factory to make a product, then we’re talking about somewhere between 18 to 36 months to do that,” Conti said, “because you have to show the U.S. regulator that you can make it at this factory at scale, and the product is what it says it is, or is high quality and meets the quality standards of the U.S.”In a statement, Alex Schriver, a spokesperson for the trade group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said “most innovative medicines prescribed in America are already made in America” and companies continue to invest in the U.S.“Tariffs risk those plans because every dollar spent on tariffs is a dollar that cannot be invested in American manufacturing or the development of future treatments and cures,” Schriver said. “Medicines have historically been exempt from tariffs because they raise costs and could lead to shortages.”What about shortages?If Trump keeps his focus solely on brand-name drugs, U.S. patients are unlikely to face shortages, Kesselheim said.“Their profits are just so, so far beyond this tariff cost that they could probably be OK or raise the prices of the drugs,” he said. “They would probably not stop production as a result.”But that excludes, he added, some smaller companies who may make niche brand-name products and may not have the resources to take on the extra costs. If tariffs extend to generics, the risk is far greater, Caplan added. Unlike brand-name drugs, generic drugs are typically sold at close to the cost they’re made, he said, which makes it difficult for companies to justify the cost of building a new facility. They’d likely be forced to walk away from production or close their plants altogether.Berkeley Lovelace Jr.Berkeley Lovelace Jr. is a health and medical reporter for NBC News. He covers the Food and Drug Administration, with a special focus on Covid vaccines, prescription drug pricing and health care. He previously covered the biotech and pharmaceutical industry with CNBC.
NEXT
Sept. 27, 2025, 9:29 AM EDTBy Freddie ClaytonThe giants of the Amazon are getting even bigger. A sweeping new study has found the rainforest’s largest trees are not only holding their ground, they’re thriving — growing, multiplying in number and continue to play a major role in mitigating the impacts of climate change.There was a 3.3% expansion in big trees per decade, scientists found, after tracking changes in 188 intact forest plots across the Amazon over the past 30 years.Led by almost 100 researchers from 60 universities in Brazil, the U.K. and elsewhere, the findings were published on Thursday in the journal “Nature Plants.”The authors attributed the growth to the rising amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of gas, oil and coal.The paper was welcomed as evidence of forest resilience in the face of climate change, but scientists warned these big trees remain vulnerable as droughts, lightning and fires are increasing in frequency, while deforestation continues to pose a serious threat.There was an understanding that big trees were “expected to be vulnerable to climate change,” Adriane Esquivel-Muelbert, one of the study’s lead authors told NBC News in a telephone interview Saturday. “What we see here is actually they seem to be showing quite a resilience.”“We’re not seeing signs of them dying off,” Esquivel-Muelbert, who co-authored the study while at Britain’s University of Birmingham, but who has since moved on to the nearby University of Cambridge. “They are increasing in size and number as well.”Scientists stressed that while protecting intact forest areas was essential to stabilizing the climate, the Amazon cannot on its own offset the vast amount of carbon dioxide produced worldwide by cars, factories and power stations — and it remains under threat.The rainforest is a carbon sink, meaning it stores more carbon than it produces. Pushing the rainforest past its limit could accelerate climate change and have terrible consequences for local communities, including Indigenous groups who depend on it. Esquivel-Muelbert stressed it was difficult to predict how worsening climate change would have an impact in the future, and hesitated to say that increased CO2 benefitted the forest, warning it may cause bigger trees to become more exposed to other factors like drought.”We don’t know the consequences in the long run,” she said. Other factors, including deforestation, remain a colossal risk to the health of the Amazon. Fattening trees is, in some ways, a “positive news story,” said Rebecca Banbury Morgan, a lead author of the study from the University of Bristol. But it also means that the forest is now “more vulnerable to losing those trees.” “Although we have shown that trees in intact forest are still increasing in size, any benefits of this in terms of the carbon sink can be quite easily negated by deforestation and logging impacts, so preserving these intact forests is really a priority,” she told NBC News. Wildfires, deforestation and global warming could permanently destroy the water cycle that sustains parts of the Amazon rainforest if action is not taken in the coming decades, according to a separate study published last year in Nature.The study suggested that 10% to 47% of the landscape is at risk of transitioning away from rainforest by 2050 if warming and rates of deforestation aren’t dramatically curbed.Brazil’s Congress approved a bill in 2023 to relax environmental licensing to pave a highway cutting through the heart of the Amazon, and close to one of the last regions that still has large areas of pristine forestLosing a large portion of the Amazon could turn a key carbon sink into a source of emissions, as wildfires burn and plants and animals decompose, no longer able to survive. Freddie ClaytonFreddie Clayton is a freelance journalist based in London. 
Related Post
September 29, 2025
Gazans need 'to take responsibility for their destiny'
October 4, 2025
Federal government shutdown set to stretch into next week
October 10, 2025
Both sides celebrate Trump’s Gaza plan
September 26, 2025
Following Comey indictment, Trump suggests more political prosecutions could be coming
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved