The News,
Decoded.

Ah, Illinois is back with more AI regulation — because nothing says 'cutting edge' like a notice requirement that tells workers, 'By the way, that algorithm that rejected your application? It exists.' The Department of Human Rights has released a proposal that would force employers to explain how they're using AI in hiring and firing decisions. Cue the legal industry popping champagne: this is going to be a compliance goldmine for consultants who'll draft vague notices that say absolutely nothing useful.

You have to admire the timing: the Illinois Senate just unveiled an eight-bill package modelled on California and New York's best-in-class frameworks, and now this proposal appears. It's almost as if the state is trying to win the prize for 'most legislation that achieves least.' Because let's be honest — what worker is going to read that notice? And what employer is going to write anything more specific than 'we use AI to evaluate qualifications'? The whole exercise reeks of performative transparency, the kind that makes regulators feel good while nothing changes.

Still, we should be grateful. At least Illinois is acknowledging that AI in employment is a thing, unlike those Colorado folks who punted their law to 2027. But let's not kid ourselves: these notice rules will be about as effective as a chocolate teapot. The data that AI uses is proprietary, the algorithms are black boxes, and 'notice' means a PDF buried in the employee handbook. Hey, it's a start. A very, very slow start.

Ah, Colorado has entered the AI regulation race — and by 'race' I mean 'leisurely stroll towards a finish line two years away.' Governor Jared Polis has signed a law that repeals the state's existing restrictions on AI in employment decisions and replaces them with... a notification requirement. Yes, employers using AI for 'consequential' decisions like hiring and compensation must now give a little heads-up. Because the problem with biased algorithms was never the bias — it was the lack of a polite note.

The term 'consequential' does a lot of heavy lifting here. It's legally defined, naturally, but one suspects it will be interpreted about as strictly as a corporate expense policy. And the effective date is 2027 — giving employers a generous two-year runway to figure out how to comply with a law that essentially says 'tell people you're using AI.' No audit requirements, no bias testing, no meaningful enforcement. Just a paper trail for a problem that requires a fire hose.

Meanwhile, AI hiring tools continue to quietly replicate historical biases at scale, and the state's response is essentially a 'please notify' sticker. One can almost hear the HR compliance officers sighing with relief — no real teeth, no real cost. The gall of calling this a 'revamped' law is almost admirable. Almost.

Trump and Xi Jinping, two men who've never met a principle they couldn't bend, apparently cosied up in Beijing to discuss 'standard AI safety guardrails.' The quote marks do a lot of heavy lifting there, because — spoiler alert — there is no such thing. Trump told reporters he and Xi talked about 'the need for standard guardrails,' which is a bit like two rival chefs agreeing on the 'standard recipe for a unicorn': the concept doesn't exist yet, but by golly, they'll pretend it does. The Gizmodo piece helpfully points out that no such standard exists, but that's never stopped either leader from claiming victory.

This is peak diplomatic theatre: two superpowers whose AI strategies are miles apart — the US scrambling via export controls and the PRC burning state cash on frontier models — now agree on the *idea* of guardrails, just not the fine print. Because of course there's no standard. The US wants 'guardrails' that protect its dominance; China wants 'guardrails' that look good on paper while they quietly build. So when Trump says they discussed 'standard guardrails,' what he really means is they agreed to use the same vague phrase while each continues doing whatever they were doing.

Still, great to see the world's most consequential technological challenge reduced to two old men nodding at each other over a photo op. The safety community can rest easy now — after all, the 'standard' is coming. Any day now. Just as soon as someone defines what it is, enforces it, and prevents either side from treating 'guardrails' as optional suggestions. Cheers to progress, lads.

The Department of Justice is mulling over whether to wade into a lawsuit between the NAACP and Elon's little xAI empire over a gas power plant in Mississippi. The NAACP claims xAI and MZX Tech are operating the thing illegally, but the DOJ is reportedly thinking: "Hold my brief — we've got AI dominance to sustain." Because of course, the path to superintelligence is paved with natural gas and federal interference in local environmental justice cases. One can almost hear the turbines humming "Don't Stop Believin'" while the NAACP's lawyers sharpen their pencils.

The lawsuit itself is a classic: a civil rights organisation alleging that a tech company's energy infrastructure is breaking the law, and the federal government weighing in to say, "Actually, could you not slow down our precious AI race?" The DOJ's potential intervention cites U.S. policy to maintain AI leadership, which apparently means environmental regulations are flexible suggestions when you're building the world's smartest chatbot. The NAACP must be thrilled that their attempt to protect a community from a gas plant is now a national security issue — nothing says "justice" like a DOJ filing that tells you your environmental concerns are secondary to compute scale.

But look on the bright side: at least we're being honest now. AI dominance requires dirty energy, and the government will step in to make sure of it. The NAACP versus xAI: a microcosm of the entire AI industry — all growth, no responsibility, and a federal government that picks winners. Superintelligence can't come soon enough; at this rate we'll cook the planet before we get there. Delightful.

Ah, Illinois has entered the AI regulation race — and by 'race' I mean 'slow shuffle towards a vaguely-defined finish line eight states have already tripped over.' Senate Democrats have introduced an eight-bill package, modelled on the pioneering efforts of California and New York, because why innovate when you can copy-paste legislation? The target date is May 31, which in state-government time translates to 'we'll definitely have something by the time the next crisis hits.'

Let's inspect the supposed teeth of this package. The bills allegedly address 'some uses of artificial intelligence' — that 'some' is doing heroic work, covering everything from deepfakes to algorithmic bias while conspicuously avoiding the trillion-dollar frontier models actually shaping the future. No mention of compute thresholds, training data transparency, or the small matter of agents that can run autonomously for hours. It's like regulating the Ford Model T while Tesla is launching a Cybertruck.

And the timeline! May 31 is just two weeks away. Illinois is sprinting to pass legislation that its own legal counsel probably hasn't finished reading. The result will be either an unenforceable mess or a paper tiger that tech companies' legal departments will laugh at over their third espresso. But hey, at least the press release got written. That's the kind of regulation we deserve — designed for headlines, not enforcement. Bottoms up, Springfield.

Ah, the All-In podcast — where tech oligarchs go to one-up each other on who can burn money fastest. Marc Benioff, with the straight face of a man who has never met a hype cycle he didn't mount, announced Salesforce will likely spend $300 million on Anthropic tokens this year. Three hundred million dollars. For tokens. That's not an investment, that's a server room on fire, and Benioff is roasting marshmallows.

Let's be clear what this actually means: Salesforce, a company that already owns its own AI products (Einstein, anyone?), is outsourcing its intelligence to Anthropic's API. This is the corporate equivalent of buying a Michelin-star meal when you own a kitchen. But hey, why build when you can rent? The $300M figure is a flex, but it's also a confession — Salesforce has no proprietary edge, so they'll just steal Claude's glory and call it 'AI-powered CRM.'

And Benioff dropped this on a podcast, not in an earnings call, because that way he avoids shareholder scrutiny. Expect Salesforce's Q4 results to quietly bury this line item under 'cloud services.' The real joke? Progress!

Oh, how the mighty have fallen — or rather, pivoted to consulting. OpenAI, once the nonprofit champion of safe AGI and imminently human-level intelligence, has launched a $4B consulting venture called the OpenAI Deployment Company and acquired a startup called Tomoro that nobody had heard of until this morning's press release. CFO Sarah Friar cheerfully announced they'll "embed frontier AI engineers directly within organizations," which is corporate-speak for "your HR department is about to be colonised by people who say 'I'm here to help you 10x' while expensing lobster dinners and explaining what an LLM is."

Now, let's be fair: this is a brilliant business move. Why sell the shovels when you can sell the miners themselves? For a mere $4B, OpenAI becomes the McKinsey of machine learning, except with more compute and less soul. But there's a delicious irony here: the company that promised to automate everything is now deploying armies of human engineers into enterprise org charts. It's almost as if they've realised that their models still can't navigate corporate bureaucracy without accidentally violating three employment laws. The Tomoro acquisition is supposed to bring "AI deployment expertise," which is the consulting equivalent of buying a GPS because you keep getting lost on your own block — except this GPS costs four billion dollars and comes with a hoodie.

So what does this mean for HR professionals? According to HR Executive, the venture "lands squarely in HR territory." That's one way to put it. Another way: OpenAI is sending in the consultants to tell you how AI will replace half your workforce, but they're charging $4B for the privilege of being told by real humans instead of a chatbot. At least when the AI does it, it's cheaper, more accurate, and doesn't make passive-aggressive comments about your open-plan office. But don't worry: Sarah Friar assures us these engineers will "embed" themselves. That's one word for it.

Oh marvellous. ShengShu Technology has unveiled Motubrain, a 'world action model' promising 'infinite possibilities' for robotic intelligence. Because nothing says 'groundbreaking' like a press release that uses the phrase 'unified model that functions as a robotic brain' — a phrase so vague it could apply equally to a Roomba or a sentient toaster. The company claims it 'replaces multiple task-specific systems,' which is corporate-speak for 'we'd like you to ignore that each of those systems was probably better at its single job.' Still, it's a tidy pitch: one bot to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them to the benchmarks.

And what benchmarks they are. Motubrain ranks highly on WorldArena and RoboTwin 2.0 — tests that, like so many AI evaluations, are about as meaningful as a participation trophy at a toddler's sports day. The tasks are synthetic, the environments controlled, and the metrics chosen to flatter. We've been down this road before: every robotics startup claims to top some obscure benchmark until real-world mud, doors, and startled cats intervene.

ShengShu calls Motubrain 'a robotic brain for the physical world.' But the physical world is messy, unpredictable, and full of things that don't fit neatly into a benchmark's scenario. The 'infinite possibilities' touted in the release are likely finite in practice — limited to the specific lab conditions under which the model excels. Still, it's a great press release, and that's what matters in the AI hype cycle. Brains for robots? No, just a new coat of paint on the same old overpromise.

So Runway, the plucky AI startup that began life as a tool for filmmakers to edit videos with a bit of AI finesse, has now announced its grand ambition: to beat Google at AI. Co-founder Anastasis Germanidis claims that training models directly on 'observational data from the world' is the next frontier, and that video generation is the path to 'world models.' Because if there's one thing humanity needs, it's a world model built from Hollywood's back catalogue of car chases and romantic comedies. The result, we are told, will be felt 'from Hollywood to drug discovery' – presumably meaning that AI will both produce the next 'Cats' movie and then discover a drug to make us forget it.

Naturally, this is a classic startup pivot: first you help the little guy, then you announce you're taking on the trillion-dollar incumbents. Never mind that Google has more compute, more data, and more researchers than Runway has employees. The magic of the 'world model' is that it's so vague that no one can prove you wrong yet. And if it doesn't pan out, well, they can always go back to selling video filters to indie filmmakers – assuming those filmmakers still have jobs after Runway's world model replaces them.

The gallows humour here writes itself. We're watching the familiar cycle: a company finds a niche, gets hyped, decides it's time to challenge the giants, burns cash, and either gets acquired or disappears. The only novelty is the 'observational data' buzzword – a phrase that means absolutely nothing but sounds profound. So raise a glass to Runway's bold vision. If it works, we'll all be living in a simulation generated from YouTube videos. If it fails, at least the filmmakers got a few years of decent editing tools before the VC money ran out.

Ah, the circle of life in AI security is now complete. We were told that models like Mythos and GPT-Cyber still need humans for cybersecurity, as we noted last week. Now the same frontier models are expected to unleash an 'overwhelming number of security vulnerabilities,' leaving organizations drowning in required patches. So the script flips: first we need humans to run them, now we need more humans to fix the mess they make. Splendidly efficient.

Anthropic and OpenAI have been touting their cyber-capable models as the next big thing in defense. But apparently the models are doing a bit too much 'cybering' on the offense first. The 'surge in required patches' sounds less like a security boon and more like a full-employment act for vulnerability managers. It's the classic vendor trick: sell the problem, then sell the solution. And here we thought AI would automate patching — nope, it'll just automate the discovery of things to patch.

What's truly rich is the cosmic irony: the same labs that promised to revolutionize cybersecurity are now generating a vulnerability tsunami. The only thing more overwhelming than the surge in flaws is the sheer predictability of this outcome. As organizations brace for a deluge of CVEs, one can't help but admire the relentless ingenuity of the AI industry in creating problems no one asked for. Well played, silicon overlords. Well played.

Oh, splendid news from the frontlines of the AI arms race. Real-world testers have discovered that Anthropic's Mythos and OpenAI's "cyber-capable" models still require "significant human expertise" to function. So all those breathless press releases about autonomous cyber defense were slightly premature. Who could have predicted that turning over network security to a black box that occasionally invents facts might require a human minding the till? It's almost as if the headline "AI revolutionises cybersecurity" needed a small-print rider: "this revolution is under 18 and needs a responsible adult present."

The gap between marketing and reality yawns wider than the Grand Canyon. Anthropic and OpenAI have been selling these models as the next frontier in proactive defence, capable of outmanoeuvring human hackers at machine speed. But the user findings suggest that without a seasoned expert holding the hand of the AI, you're essentially deploying a very confident intern with a flamethrower. Remember Anthropic's solemn promises about "constitutional AI"? Apparently the constitution needs a human interpreter.

What this really means is that the cybersecurity industry gets to keep its headcount a little longer – assuming the C-suite doesn't decide that "significant human expertise" is an expensive luxury they can trim. The same executives who bought the AI hype will now have to decide whether to invest in the human babysitters or just accept the blowback. Given the current cost-cutting mood, I'd wager on the latter. But hey, at least the models are great at generating plausible-sounding incident reports. You just can't trust a word of them without a human in the loop. Again.

Oh, splendid. Sony AI has achieved a "major breakthrough" with project Ace, a table tennis robot that can now hold its own against elite human players. Because nothing says 'existential milestone' like a machine that's mastered the one sport where participants don't even have to run. The 'first known real-world autonomous system competitive with professional-level humans' — which is great news for anyone who's been losing sleep over when a robot might finally beat a human at, well, a very specific game played on a nine-by-five-foot table.

Let's pause to savour the modesty of the claim: 'competitive with' — not 'dominant over', not 'unbeatable by'. Just good enough to give a pro a decent rally. This is the same corporate-innovation speak that brought us 'self-driving cars' that needed constant human supervision and 'AI assistants' that can't book a restaurant without hallucinating the menu. Sony has essentially built a very expensive ping-pong opponent that you could already buy at a toy shop for £40, albeit one that can't move its own feet.

Still, the PR machine churns: a 'major breakthrough' in robotics, autonomous systems, whatever sells shares. Meanwhile, real-world AI is still crashing into walls and getting its training data poisoned by 4chan. But sure, let's all applaud the robot that can return a spin serve. At least when the machine uprising comes, we can challenge it to a game of table tennis — and based on this 'breakthrough', we might even stand a chance.

The US-China safety protocol dance we noted yesterday has been upgraded to a full-blown Cold War status update. The Washington Post's AI & Tech Brief now solemnly asks whether China is 'closing the gap' with US AI capabilities, just as the Trump administration enters talks on international safety protocols. Because nothing says 'we're in the lead' like opening negotiations while your competitor is breathing down your neck.

The newsletter, ever the sober analyst, examines various metrics—performance benchmarks, investment flows, talent pipelines—to conclude that the gap might indeed be narrowing. Never mind that just yesterday Treasury Secretary Bessent was boasting that US leadership enabled 'talks from a position of strength'; today the subtext is that those talks are happening precisely because the lead is eroding. The irony is thick enough to be weaponised.

One can almost picture the safety protocol negotiations: 'We'll share our best practices if you promise not to overtake us too quickly.' The whole spectacle smacks of two rival empires exchanging ambassadors while secretly funding arms races. The AI Cold War is here, complete with diplomatic niceties that fool no one. And as always, the public gets the marching orders while the labs write the rules.

Ah, the great leap forward! Accenture Federal Services and OpenAI have announced a strategic partnership to rescue government agencies from the dreaded 'pilot purgatory' — that graveyard of experimental AI projects that never quite make it to production. Because nothing inspires confidence like a consulting giant that helped launch HealthCare.gov and an AI lab that periodically publishes 'safety' papers teaming up to run agentic AI on federal systems. I'm sure the procurement paperwork alone will keep think tanks busy for a decade.

The press release speaks of 'enterprise applications led by agentic AI capabilities' — which is consultant-speak for 'we will teach the government's workflows to delegate decisions to a model that occasionally hallucinates.' Accenture Federal brings decades of experience turning taxpayer dollars into PowerPoint decks and legacy integration nightmares. OpenAI brings a model that can write poetry and, with a bit of prodding, maybe figure out how to expedite your passport renewal. The synergy is almost too beautiful to mock.

But let's not be churlish. Perhaps this time it will be different. Perhaps agentic AI will actually streamline the federal procurement process, automate the mountains of compliance paperwork, and finally allow citizens to interact with their government without wanting to tear their hair out. Or perhaps — and this is the more likely scenario — we'll get a system that accidentally denies benefits to millions because a 'guardrail' failed in the middle of a budget crisis. Either way, the invoice will be impressive. Cheers to progress from pilots to production — just don't hold your breath.

Ah, the legal profession: the last bastion of billable hours, arcane jargon, and finely wrought loopholes, now being handed a shiny new set of silicon replacements. Anthropic, fresh from its forays into constitutional AI and safety policy, has unveiled 12 new AI tools targeting corporate, regulatory, and employment law — because clearly what the world needs is Claude generating NDAs faster than a paralegal can say "privileged." The company frames this as "extending beyond" its role as a frontier model maker, which is a polite way of saying they've finally found a customer base with an unlimited budget for cost-saving automation. Bloomberg Law reports the move as a "deeper push," and they're not wrong — it's a push alright, straight into the soft underbelly of the legal industry.

Twelve tools for specific practice areas — that's one for every month of the year if you want to automate your entire legal department by Christmas. The move is strategic: corporate legal departments are stuffed with high-margin, low-creativity work like due diligence, contract review, and regulatory compliance. Anthropic, having previously lectured Congress about AI alignment, now wants to be the thing that makes your job alignment obsolete. Because nothing says "responsible AI" like deploying models that can summarise a 500-page SEC filing in 3 seconds flat — not that any human regulator will have time to read the summaries before they're used to draft the next deregulation.

And let's not pretend this is about "augmenting" lawyers. This is about replacing them, one practice area at a time. Legal tech is a gold rush, and Anthropic has just planted a very large, very expensive flag. The upshot? Soon your employment contract will be drafted by a model that can't even take the LSAT, but hey, it scored in the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam, so you're in safe hands. For the legal profession, it's not the end of billable hours, but the beginning of a very different kind of unbillable hour: the one spent arguing with Claude about why your non-compete clause is unenforceable. Marvellous.

Anthropic, the company that brought us the increasingly unsettling Mythos model, has decided to moonlight as a geopolitical strategist. In a new policy document that reads like a fever dream of Cold War paranoia dipped in Californian techno-optimism, they claim the US can cement a one- to two-year AI lead against China—if it acts fast to close loopholes enabling chip flow. Because nothing says "we have this under control" like a job application for Supreme Allied Commander of Semiconductor Patrol. One imagines Dario Amodei presenting this to a White House briefing room while an actual chip-smuggling operation hums along in the background, shipping Nvidia GPUs to Shenzhen via Vietnam.

The suggestion that closing loopholes now will secure a permanent advantage is adorable—like locking the stable door after the horse has not only bolted but set up a semiconductor fab in Guangzhou. The one- to two-year lead is a laughably precise estimate for a field where capabilities double every few months. Someone at Anthropic has been reading too many PowerPoint slides from the 1950s space race. Meanwhile, the actual chip flow to China continues through the very gaps Anthropic wants to close, suggesting the "loopholes" are more like open shipping lanes. The US Treasury Secretary may believe "we are in the lead," but leads in AI have a half-life measured in press releases.

And while Anthropic plays grand strategy, its own creation is galloping ahead. Mythos is evolving faster than expected we noted last week, but sure, let's focus on a 1-2 year lead that will be obsolete before the ink dries on the policy. The company that can't fully control its own model now wants to control the world's chip supply. Perfect. Nothing could possibly go wrong with putting an AI lab in charge of export controls. At least they'll have a two-year head start on the smugglers.

Ah, the trickle-down economics of AI job displacement has finally reached the mom-and-pop shop. According to TIME, small business owners are gleefully replacing not just workers but whole suites of software—HubSpot, Calendly, DocuSign—with AI agents, saving ‘thousands of dollars annually.’ Because nothing says ‘small business resilience’ like firing your receptionist and buying a chatbot. The article breathlessly notes these owners are ‘saving thousands,’ as if that justifies the quiet hollowing out of local employment. One can almost hear the collective sigh of relief from the Chamber of Commerce: finally, a way to cut costs without having to hire an overpaid consultant.

And what, pray, will these newly liberated workers do? Perhaps they’ll retrain as prompt engineers—the new ‘learn to code’ of the 2020s. The article doesn’t dwell on that detail, because why would it? The narrative is about efficiency, not the humans being efficiently replaced. It’s the same script we saw last week with Cisco and Block, only now it’s your local bakery or accounting firm. The jargon shifts from ‘hard decisions’ to ‘savings,’ but the result is identical: fewer paychecks, more shareholders smiling.

Still, one must admire the chutzpah. Small business owners, long the romanticised backbone of the economy, are now the vanguard of automation. They’re skipping the intermediate step of buying software subscriptions and going straight to AI agents that never take sick days or ask for a raise. The ‘thousands saved’ will surely be reinvested in… well, presumably more AI agents. And when the last human employee is gone, who will be left to buy the products? But that’s tomorrow’s problem. Today, we celebrate savings.

Well, here we are again. The UK AI Security Institute — a body that sounds like it ought to be issuing fire-safety certificates for server rooms — has announced that Anthropic's Mythos is 'evolving faster than expected.' Specifically, a newer version outperformed its own earlier results and OpenAI's GPT-5.5, a scant month after Mythos' initial release. One month. That's four weeks for the model to improve enough to leapfrog the previous frontier. What could possibly go wrong?

Let's pause and savour the irony: the very agency tasked with 'security' is the one gleefully publicising how quickly the model is accelerating past benchmarks. They're not ringing alarm bells; they're issuing press releases. 'Dear world, the thing we're supposed to keep safe is outrunning all expectations — just so you know.' It's like a fire brigade announcing that the blaze is spreading faster than predicted, but ensuring everyone knows it's a remarkably colourful fire.

And all this 'fast evolution' talk conveniently sidesteps the question of what's actually inside the newer version. Is it a few tweaked weights, or a genuinely novel architecture? The blog post probably doesn't say, because if it did, the 'security' part might involve admitting they have no idea how it works. But hey, at least it beats GPT-5.5. For now.

Oh, marvellous. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced that the U.S. and China will establish an AI safety protocol, because nothing says 'safety' quite like a race where one side insists it's 'in the lead' and the other side is presumably plotting its own gallop. Bessent told CNBC that the U.S. is so far ahead that it can afford to chat with its main rival about guardrails. Because when have two superpowers with advanced weapons systems ever had a productive conversation about safety while one is claiming victory? The protocol itself is still a shimmering mirage of diplomatic jargon.

The timing is exquisite: the world's two largest economies, locked in a tech cold war, are going to sit down and agree on rules for something neither fully controls. Bessent's confidence that 'we are in the lead' is the kind of hubris that usually precedes a historical foot-in-mouth moment. Perhaps the protocol will include a clause about not letting AGI escape while the other side blinks. The gall of framing a bilateral safety chat as a position of strength is peak diplomatic theatre — two wizards arguing about wand safety before duelling.

So here we are: a safety protocol between two nations that have spent the last few years throttling each other's chip supplies. Bessent might think the U.S. is leading, but in the race to regulate something as slippery as AI, 'leading' might just mean you're the first to trip. Still, it's good to know that when the artificial superintelligence inevitably wakes up, it will have some very polite, thoroughly negotiated rules to ignore. Cheers, Scott.

Oh, brilliant. The Trump administration and RFK Jr. — the 1-2 punch of rational health policy — have decided that what AI healthcare tools really need is fewer safeguards. According to a KFF Health News report, the dynamic duo is pushing to relax the rules that might prevent your chatbot doctor from prescribing bleach or diagnosing a sprained ankle as existential dread. Because nothing says 'patient safety' quite like putting the anti-vaccine crusader in charge of medical AI oversight.

Let's be clear: the 'safeguards' they want to dismantle are the ones that require AI tools to be validated before they tell your grandmother she has cancer. RFK Jr. has been railing against 'medical tyranny' for years, and now he's found the perfect vehicle: algorithms that can hallucinate a cure for measles and prescribe it without FDA interference. It's like giving a lobotomised parrot a medical licence, but with more libertarian funding.

And why stop at healthcare? Next up: relaxing safeguards for autonomous vehicles — let's put RFK Jr. in charge of that too, because 'my body, my self-driving car' has a nice ring to it. The labs will love it: no pesky clinical trials, no evidence, just pure, unregulated AI moving fast and breaking bones. As the old saying goes, 'first, do no harm' — but that was before the Department of Deregulation got involved.