Trump Launches ‘AI Force’ to Outpace China and Silence Safety Warnings

President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Saturday with a blunt declaration. He is forming an “AI Force.” He will soon name an AI “czar.” Only “High I.Q. individuals need apply.”

The announcement lands as leading voices in the technology sector issue urgent calls to slow the breakneck pace of artificial intelligence development. Trump dismisses those concerns outright. He labels them the latest in a string of hoaxes pushed by political opponents. But the move reveals a calculated strategy. Speed up American innovation. Centralize oversight. Keep the U.S. ahead of China at all costs.

“Over the years, there have been many Hoaxes, all generated by the Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country,” Trump wrote. “And now, the decimation, or destruction, of AI, commonly known as Artificial Intelligence — And I, as President of the United States, will not stand by and let this happen.”

Short. Direct. Classic Trump. He compared the new entity to the Space Force he created during his first term. That initiative, he noted, proved a “tremendous SUCCESS.” The AI Force, he suggested, would protect the industry from interference while allowing it to flourish. “We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry. Rather, we will cherish it, help it, and watch over it, as it grows!”

Yet Trump added a caveat. The government would watch for misuse. “However, we will also be looking for BAD, and we can do that, very easily, with our already existing Criminal and Civil Justice System.” No new regulations. No heavy bureaucracy. Existing laws suffice. The message aligns with months of executive actions that prioritize rapid adoption across national security agencies.

From Executive Orders to a Dedicated Force

This latest declaration builds directly on earlier steps. In June, the White House issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence in the National Security Enterprise. It directed agencies to accelerate uptake of advanced models. Partnerships with commercial providers expanded. Talent pipelines strengthened. The goal was clear: give American warfighters and intelligence professionals decisive technological overmatch. (White House Fact Sheet)

An accompanying executive order from early June established a voluntary framework for frontier AI models. Developers could submit systems for government review before public release. The focus stayed on innovation paired with basic safeguards. Cybersecurity hardening. Protection of critical systems. Avoidance of any measures that might cede ground to Beijing. (White House Executive Order)

Trump’s Saturday post repeats themes from those documents. AI could represent as much as 25 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. It stands as the next Industrial Revolution. Larger than the internet. The United States leads China and the rest of the world. He intends to keep it that way. The race, in his view, leaves no room for hesitation.

Industry leaders see different risks. Executives at Anthropic and OpenAI recently warned about the dangers of unchecked progress toward superintelligence. They called for coordinated slowdowns. Trump responded sharply earlier in the week. He branded such fears a “SICK conspiracy.” He singled out Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. The president claimed his administration already possesses “tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies.” (CNN Politics)

So the AI Force arrives at a tense moment. Details remain sparse. White House officials have not clarified whether it will function as a new military branch, a cross-agency task force, or something else entirely. The czar’s exact authorities stay undefined. Questions linger about staffing, reporting lines, and integration with existing bodies such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

But the intent shines through. Central coordination without regulatory drag. Private-sector talent injected into government operations. A structure that echoes the US Tech Force program announced late last year. That effort aimed to recruit roughly 1,000 AI engineers and specialists. It embedded them across departments including Defense and Treasury. Companies like AWS, Apple, and others signed on. (CBS News)

David Sacks, who previously served in a dual AI and crypto czar role, offered an earlier model. His tenure championed light-touch policies. The new czar will likely follow suit. Trump wants high-caliber minds. People who share his vision of unbridled American AI dominance.

Critics worry the approach leaves critical gaps. Public opinion polls show growing unease. A majority of Americans now view AI more as a potential harm than a benefit. Lawmakers from both parties have pushed for stronger guardrails on safety, bias, and job displacement. Trump’s stance puts him at odds with that sentiment heading into midterm elections.

And the international dimension complicates matters further. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met with Chinese counterparts this weekend. AI rivalry sits high on the agenda ahead of Trump’s upcoming summit with President Xi Jinping. Beijing advances its own models at a rapid clip. U.S. officials once described a multi-month lead. Industry voices now call it neck and neck. Export controls on advanced chips remain a flashpoint. Allegations of technology copying persist.

Trump’s announcement signals no retreat. Quite the opposite. The AI Force, in his framing, ensures the United States stays ahead. It counters what he sees as self-sabotage by domestic critics. Data center construction faced backlash over energy use and local impact. Trump likened that pushback to failed attacks on other priorities. The pattern, he argues, repeats with AI itself.

Supporters applaud the clarity. A single point of accountability. Fast decision-making. Reduced overlap between agencies. Skeptics counter that real risks demand more than existing statutes and a high-IQ appointee. Autonomous weapons. Misinformation at scale. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure. These issues have grown more pressing as models grow more capable.

The June national security memo addressed some of those points. It required annual reviews of autonomy guidance for weapon systems. It stressed clear chains of command. It barred any commercial entity from disabling AI tools that warfighters rely upon without approval. Practical measures. Yet they stop short of the comprehensive safety testing many experts advocate.

Trump’s latest move sidesteps that debate. He frames regulation itself as the threat. Slowing down hands advantage to adversaries. The AI Force exists to prevent that outcome. To watch over growth. To apply justice system tools where misuse appears. Simple in concept. Execution will prove far more complex.

Reactions poured in quickly on X. Some hailed the announcement as decisive leadership. Others questioned whether another layer of government coordination would accelerate anything. A few noted the irony. After years of complaints about bureaucratic bloat, Trump proposes yet another specialized body. But this one carries his personal brand. Modeled on a signature first-term achievement. Positioned as a bulwark against decline.

History offers mixed lessons. The original Space Force overcame early skepticism. It integrated space operations more effectively across military branches. Whether an AI Force can deliver similar focus remains untested. The technology evolves far faster than orbital mechanics. Models improve weekly. New capabilities emerge without warning. Any oversight structure must keep pace. Or risk irrelevance.

For now, the president has set the direction. Unleash AI. Appoint top talent. Maintain the lead. Details will follow. The choice of czar will signal priorities. Will the pick come from industry? Academia? National security circles? Trump has not said. He only set the bar. High intelligence. Alignment with his growth-first philosophy.

The coming weeks will test whether this approach satisfies lawmakers, reassures a wary public, or simply amplifies existing tensions. One thing appears certain. The U.S. government is doubling down on artificial intelligence as a core strategic asset. No slowdown. No apologies. Full speed ahead. The AI Force has been called into existence. Its real work begins when the czar takes the helm.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/TgoUkD9

Fed Examiners Saw SVB’s Fatal Flaws a Year Early but Held Back, Fearing a Wrong Call

More than three years after Silicon Valley Bank collapsed in a spectacular March 2023 run, a new independent review has laid bare a striking truth. Federal Reserve supervisors knew or should have known about the bank’s deadly vulnerabilities as early as March 2022. They simply didn’t act with the force required.

The findings come from an outside examination commissioned by Michelle Bowman, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision. Starling Advisory Group conducted the work. Its conclusions, released Friday, paint a picture of paralysis born from fear. Examiners believed it safer to do nothing than risk getting a call wrong.

Bowman laid out the results in pointed remarks. “Our supervisory staff knew, or should have known, about these vulnerabilities as early as March 2022,” she said. Yet “supervisory staff did not take prompt and decisive action to encourage or require Silicon Valley Bank to reduce its interest rate risk or concentration of vulnerabilities.”

The vulnerabilities formed a toxic mix. Unrealized losses on the bank’s securities portfolio had wiped out its capital. Its deposit base stood at 94 percent uninsured and heavily concentrated among venture capital-backed technology companies. Management lacked operational readiness to borrow from the Fed’s discount window in a crisis. Any one issue might have been survivable. Together they proved fatal.

This account sharpens earlier post-mortems. The Fed’s own 2023 review led by then-Vice Chair Michael Barr criticized lax standards after 2018 regulatory easing and slow supervisory follow-through. It pointed to a less assertive culture under previous leadership. The new report goes further. It rejects the idea that the 2018 tailoring law or directives from prior officials caused the delays. The former vice chair for supervision had stepped down in October 2021, before SVB’s problems peaked.

Instead the Starling review homes in on something more insidious. A long-standing culture of risk aversion inside the supervisory ranks. Staff saw personal safety in inaction unless they held absolute certainty. Lack of clear decision rights only made things worse. No one knew exactly who could sign off on a tough call.

And social media? It played no meaningful role in accelerating the run, the report found. Analysis by Charles River Associates, brought in by Starling, showed 96 percent of relevant social media activity occurred only after the bank’s failure had become inevitable. The run started from real weaknesses, not online rumors.

Bowman didn’t mince words about the implications. “One significant factor contributing to supervisory inaction was a long-standing culture of risk aversion,” she said. “Staff believed it was personally safer to take no action unless they were certain the action was exactly right.” A lack of clarity on decision rights compounded the problem. Responsibility, authority and accountability had become disconnected across the system.

The review arrives at a delicate moment. Bowman, nominated by President Donald Trump, has already begun overhauling supervision practices. She plans staff reductions in the division. New supervisory operating principles stress earlier identification of threats and faster action. Examination teams must now file monthly reports to top leaders flagging any uncertainty about when or whether to act. The goal is real-time visibility and less fear of being second-guessed.

Critics wasted little time pushing back. Senator Elizabeth Warren called the report “an embarrassing attempt to re-write history designed to pave the way for more dangerous deregulation that will lead to the next Silicon Valley Bank disaster,” according to a Reuters article.

Her reaction reflects deep partisan divides over bank rules. The 2023 failure shook confidence in regional lenders. It forced emergency measures to backstop deposits and prevent contagion. No depositors ultimately lost money. But the episode exposed cracks in how midsize banks are watched.

Earlier analyses had reached similar ground. The Fed’s 2023 Barr report found supervisors failed to appreciate SVB’s risks as it ballooned from $71 billion to over $211 billion in assets between 2019 and 2021. It issued findings on governance, liquidity and interest-rate risk. Yet the pace remained deliberate. The bank held 31 open supervisory matters when it failed — three times the peer average. The Federal Reserve’s 2023 review called the approach too consensus-driven and slow.

A CEPR column from August 2026 went deeper. It argued the risks at SVB were visible for years. The bank had long funded long-duration securities with concentrated uninsured deposits. Supervisors focused on process compliance rather than forward-looking risk. They acted only once losses materialized amid rate hikes. The piece described supervision as policing process instead of actual exposures.

The Starling findings echo that view but assign clearer blame to internal caution. They also dismantle some prior excuses. Tailoring rules didn’t tie supervisors’ hands. No top-down order softened scrutiny. The problem sat inside the organization itself. Examiners hesitated because the personal cost of error felt higher than the institutional cost of delay.

Bowman insists the exercise isn’t about blame. “This review is not about assigning blame. Instead, it is about learning lessons from the past to avoid repeating them in the future,” she told her audience. The Fed has started addressing the culture head-on. Monthly escalation reports aim to surface doubts quickly. Leadership gains sightlines into gray areas. The hope is examiners will flag concerns without worrying about career repercussions.

Whether these steps will stick remains an open question. Banking supervision has always balanced judgment calls against second-guessing. Rate environments shift. Business models evolve. Concentrated deposit bases can vanish overnight, as SVB proved when its tech clients pulled funds en masse.

The report lands the same week the Fed raised interest rates for the first time since 2023. Higher rates amplified SVB’s unrealized losses in 2022. Today’s environment carries different pressures. Commercial real estate exposures, for instance, have drawn fresh scrutiny at other regional players.

Industry insiders have watched the regulatory pendulum swing for decades. Post-2008 rules tightened dramatically. The 2018 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act dialed some back for smaller institutions. SVB sat right at the edge of heightened standards. Its growth outran the gradual phase-in.

Yet the new review suggests the real failure wasn’t in the rulebook. It was in execution. Supervisors saw the problems. They documented them. They just couldn’t pull the trigger fast enough. Certainty became the enemy of timeliness.

Bowman has signaled broader changes ahead. Reduced headcount in supervision. Clearer principles. Faster escalation paths. The test will come in the next stress point. Will examiners act on early warnings, or will the same risk aversion reassert itself?

SVB’s collapse didn’t topple the system. Swift government intervention contained the damage. But the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history left a mark. It showed how quickly confidence can evaporate when uninsured depositors smell trouble. It revealed gaps in liquidity planning and interest-rate hedging at institutions that seemed sophisticated.

The Starling report won’t end the debate. Warren and others see it as cover for loosening rules. Supporters of Bowman’s approach view it as a clear-eyed diagnosis free from prior political lenses. What matters most is whether the cultural fixes take hold.

Because the next time a bank sits on large unrealized losses and a flighty deposit base, supervisors will face the same choice. Act early and risk being called heavy-handed. Wait and risk another slow-motion disaster. The new procedures aim to make that choice less fraught. History suggests it won’t be easy.

Friday’s release adds one more layer to the SVB story. It doesn’t rewrite the facts of the bank’s mismanagement. SVB’s own leadership failed to grasp or address its exposures. But it does sharpen accountability for the watchdogs. They saw it coming. They knew enough. They held back anyway. The reason, according to this latest account, was simple. They feared being wrong.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/OSraHYy

How AI Powers an Unchecked Theft Machine

Matt Stoller didn’t mince words. In his newsletter published today, the antitrust advocate laid out a blunt case: the rush to build ever-larger AI systems rests on systematic violations of law that regulators have chosen not to pursue. The Big Newsletter called it an elite crime spree. Documents unsealed in the New York Times copyright suit against OpenAI show the company circumvented paywalls to scrape content. When informed of the hack, President Greg Brockman replied, “ah nice.”

A Microsoft director of applied science went further. He described training big models on copyrighted material as “the largest theft of labor in human history.” Those words come from court filings uncovered by Jason Kint. They suggest possible breaches of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Yet enforcement remains absent.

Short. Direct. The pattern repeats across the industry.

While tech executives warn of future existential risks, present-day harms multiply. Voice clones mimic grandchildren in distress. Deepfakes pose as executives demanding urgent wire transfers. Synthetic identities slip past verification systems at scale. Losses have reached hundreds of millions in the United States alone. And the technology that enables this arrives cheaper and more convincing each quarter.

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center tracked the shift. In 2025 it received more than 22,000 complaints tied to AI tools. Reported losses hit $893 million. Investment scams accounted for $632 million of that total. Older Americans bore a heavy share, losing $352 million. Yahoo News reported the figures yesterday.

But those numbers capture only what victims recognize and report. Many scams now arrive polished. A few seconds of audio from social media suffices for convincing voice clones. AI writing tools generate error-free phishing messages that once betrayed their origins through awkward phrasing. The Washington Post explained the change this week. Scams aren’t new. Their cost and quality have transformed.

Organized networks recycle the same fraudulent assets across targets.

Shufti’s 2026 Identity Fraud Report, released last week, paints an even darker picture. Deepfake document fraud made up 80 percent of AI-enabled attacks in the first half of the year. Synthetic identities followed at 12 percent. The firm projects a 495 percent rise in AI-powered identity fraud for 2026 compared with 2025. Organized rings reuse the same forged documents and devices. One network linked 70 identities through just 13 devices. Digital Watch Observatory covered the report on September 11.

TRM Labs tracked parallel growth in crypto-related crime. Its 2026 AI-in-Crime Adoption Index climbed to 54 from 28 in 2024. Deepfake-scam losses in early 2026 already exceeded the entire previous year by 263 percent. Deloitte forecasts U.S. generative-AI-driven fraud losses will reach $40 billion by 2027, up from $12.3 billion in 2023. The firm published its analysis this month. TRM Labs detailed the index on September 17.

And. The same tools power romance scams that once required weeks of patient grooming. Incode’s Agentic Fraud Report documented 66 incidents, 44 of them confirmed AI cases. Autonomous agents now handle target research, conversation maintenance and fund extraction with minimal human oversight. Global fraud losses reached $579 billion in 2025 according to Nasdaq Verafin data cited in the report. Incode released its findings today.

Real people feel the impact. A Georgia man lost his car and cash after months of communication with an AI-generated persona posing as a sheriff’s deputy. Police arrested 25-year-old Caleb Mills on charges including identity fraud and impersonation. He allegedly used stolen photos, fake accounts and voice-changing tools. Cybernews reported the case on September 9.

Another victim, Kris Kolakosis, handed over $400,000 in a catfishing scheme built on AI-generated profiles and conversations. He met “Eliza” on Facebook. The interaction felt genuine until the requests for money began. Newsgram told his story in July.

Corporations face sophisticated variants. In one documented case, fraudsters used a cloned executive voice during a video call to authorize a large transfer. Such business email compromise schemes involving AI generated $30 million in reported FBI losses for 2025. The bureau has warned repeatedly about deepfakes impersonating government officials, including videos of senior FBI agents directing victims to fake recovery sites.

But what about the foundation? The training data itself.

Stoller argues the entire edifice depends on mass copyright infringement and unauthorized access. Hyperscalers scrape the internet without permission. They circumvent technical protections. When caught, responses range from indifference to celebration. Existing laws already prohibit these acts. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Copyright statutes. Antitrust rules against illegal monopolies. Yet prosecutors rarely charge the powerful.

Sam Bankman-Fried once served as a major early backer of Anthropic. Meta faced accusations of facilitating mass sex trafficking on its platforms. Financial maneuvers fund the enormous data centers required. Each element adds to a picture of an industry operating beyond normal legal constraints.

Enforcement lags for a reason. Political pressure favors new regulations over application of old ones. Safety standards modeled on the FDA gain traction among some lawmakers and even certain AI firms. Bernie Sanders calls for oversight. Anthropic, OpenAI and Google support versions of it. Stoller counters that such measures miss the point. The problem isn’t lack of rules. It’s selective blindness to violations by elites.

Recent actions show tentative pushback. The Manhattan District Attorney seized 12 domains selling AI-generated non-consensual deepfake pornography in mid-September. The sites allegedly turned photos of 1,200 real people into explicit videos without consent. Victims included actors, politicians and influencers. Manhattan DA’s Office announced the seizures on September 14.

Still, these represent surface-level responses. The deeper architecture remains untouched. Organized crime networks in Southeast Asia use American AI models like ChatGPT and Gemini to automate multilingual scam operations. One tool set generated tens of millions in illicit profits. AP and FRONTLINE documented the supply chain in June. Scammers pay for specialized software built on U.S. tech. The profits flow back through crypto wallets.

Projections point higher. Incode estimates AI could accelerate global scam losses toward $1 trillion annually if trends continue. Shufti sees fraud rings scaling through reusable synthetic assets. TRM Labs notes the industrialization of deepfake production across dozens of countries.

So the panic over future AI dangers feels oddly timed. Current capabilities already extract value at unprecedented scale. They steal creative labor. They defraud individuals and businesses. They erode trust in voice, image and video. All while the architects claim to race toward beneficial artificial general intelligence.

Critics like Stoller demand something simpler. Enforce the laws on the books. Treat the “largest theft of labor in human history” as a crime worth prosecuting. Apply antitrust standards to break illegal monopolies. Pursue clear violations of computer fraud statutes.

Without that shift, new regulations risk becoming theater. They may slow responsible developers while sophisticated operators continue unchecked. The crime spree, elite in its participants and global in its victims, rolls on. Billions in losses accumulate. And the public grows weary of promises that tomorrow’s safeguards will fix today’s thefts.

The evidence sits in court documents. FBI reports. Industry analyses released this month. The pattern is clear. AI doesn’t just enable fraud. In many corners it was built on it.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/MIpltZG

Foreign Central Banks Turn Away From U.S. Treasuries as Holdings Hit Multi-Year Lows

Foreign central banks and governments have soured on U.S. Treasury securities. Their holdings slid again in July. Official foreign owners now sit on just $3.77 trillion in Treasuries at market value. That’s roughly the same dollar amount they held back in 2012.

But context matters. The total stock of marketable Treasuries has tripled since then. Inflation has added 48% to the price level over that span. The share of Treasuries in foreign official hands has plunged to 12.8%. Not seen since 1993. The shift leaves the U.S. far less reliant on these traditional buyers.

Latest data from the Treasury Department’s TIC report show total foreign holdings of U.S. government debt dropped $50.4 billion in July to $9.25 trillion. The lowest mark since October 2025. (Wolf Street, Sept. 17, 2026).

Japan cut its position by $13 billion. That brings its reduction since February to $135 billion. Tokyo needed dollars to defend the yen. Multiple intervention rounds explain the sales. Don’t expect tears from Japanese authorities. Those operations have proven profitable.

China’s official holdings fell another $15.4 billion to $618 billion. An 18-year low. The figure matches levels last seen in August 2008. Combine mainland China and Hong Kong. The pair shed $13 billion in July alone. Over the past 12 months the decline totals $67 billion. The long retreat from the 2013 peak above $1.3 trillion continues without pause.

France saw a sharp drop of $41.5 billion. Its holdings stand at $348.4 billion. Canada trimmed $33.3 billion. Leaving it with $426.3 billion. The UK moved the other way. Adding $58.4 billion to reach $998.3 billion. Still, the net picture shows official sellers dominating.

These moves reflect deeper forces. Central banks hunt alternatives. Gold stands out. China’s reserves have shifted noticeably toward the metal. Over the past decade Beijing cut Treasury exposure by 47% while lifting gold holdings 27%. India took the opposite path. Raising both Treasuries and gold.

Wei Li, head of multi-asset investments at BNP Paribas Securities in China, points to a clear pattern. “A global trend of diversification into gold and agency bonds, as well as other assets like equities, especially with the AI boom.” (Financial Times, Sept. 17, 2026). Real yields sit near highs not seen since 2008. Yet the old negative link to gold prices broke in 2022. Central banks keep buying the metal anyway. The World Gold Council reports 22 straight months of net accumulation. Reserves now top $5 trillion. Surpassing foreign official Treasury holdings.

Geopolitics adds fuel. Beijing worries about asset freezes. Russia’s experience in 2022 lingers. U.S. fiscal deficits swell. Inflation risks persist. Trade surpluses no longer flow so readily into American paper. The two economies face opposite pressures. America wrestles with deficits and price pressures. China battles slowing growth and deflation.

But the story isn’t simple flight. Private foreign investors keep buying. They pushed total foreign holdings higher in recent years even as officials sold. Opaque financial centers lead the charge. Belgium holds $471 billion. Cayman Islands $460 billion. Luxembourg $442 billion. Ireland $350 billion. Switzerland $285 billion. Singapore $278 billion. Many of these positions reflect U.S. hedge funds and corporations parking money offshore. The basis trade lives here. So does corporate America with overseas entities.

Foreign official holdings now make up only 41% of overseas Treasury ownership. Down from two-thirds in 2014. The absolute level sits just 8% below 2014 peaks. Yet the overall Treasury market tripled. Reserve accumulation slowed globally. The Fed’s own balance sheet expansion absorbed supply. Dollar strength forced rebalancing.

Recent reports confirm the trend. China’s July figure marks the lowest since 2008. France and Canada led the monthly drop. UK buying provided only partial offset. (The Nation Thailand, Sept. 18, 2026). Analysts note China’s true exposure may exceed reported numbers. Custodial holdings in Belgium and Luxembourg obscure part of the picture.

Implications stretch wide. The U.S. must court different buyers to fund its deficits. Yields rise to attract them. The 20-year auction last week cleared at 5.42%. Indirect bidders showed limited appetite. Private leveraged players fill gaps. But their commitment differs from patient central bank money.

Gold’s surge tells part of the tale. Central banks accumulated 1,000 tonnes annually in recent years. Double the prior decade’s pace. 89% of respondents in a June World Gold Council survey expect further gains ahead. The old correlation with real yields no longer holds. Gold trades near $4,300 an ounce. Far above levels implied by historical relationships.

Japan’s sales carry special weight. Its interventions drained foreign currency reserves by $95 billion in August. Securities accounted for most of the drop. Yet Tokyo turned a profit overall. Future defenses may rely more on borrowing arrangements at the Fed rather than outright sales.

The numbers don’t lie. Official foreign ownership share collapsed from 34% in 2012 and over 38% at the 2007-2009 peak. To 12.8% now. Total foreign ownership hovers near 31-34% of the market. Stable on the surface. But the composition changed. Private capital. Often leveraged. Often domiciled in Caribbean or European financial centers. Often tied to U.S. entities.

This evolution carries risks. Basis trades can unwind fast if funding costs spike. Private money proves fickle in stress. Central banks once provided stable demand. Their absence forces higher yields or bigger Fed involvement. Or both.

Recent TIC data paint a consistent picture. Declines in July followed similar moves in prior months. Japan. China. France. Canada. All trimming. The UK stands as notable exception. India added modestly in some periods but shows longer-term caution. Brazil and others vary.

Broader research supports the view. Slower global reserve buildup explains much of the shift. Fed holdings. Currency rebalancing. Geoeconomic fragmentation reduces demand from countries distant from U.S. policy. Private demand remains more sensitive to safe-haven flows. (Bloomberg, Sept. 16, 2026).

The U.S. debt stands at $40 trillion and climbing. New supply floods the market. One trillion dollars absorbed in recent three-month periods. Buyers demand compensation. Yields adjust. The old comfortable reliance on foreign official capital has faded. A new balance emerges. One that depends more on domestic buyers, private foreign capital, and market-driven rates.

And that change won’t reverse soon. Diversification continues. Gold buying persists. Fiscal pressures in Washington show no sign of easing. Foreign central banks have found Treasuries less appetizing. The market adapts. But not without higher costs.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/KLcu7kg

Bitcoin’s Uncertain Path: Why $100,000 Hopes Clash With Fresh Setbacks

Bitcoin trades near $76,000 this week. The cryptocurrency has shed gains from August’s rally. Fresh pressure comes from failed legislation and signals of tighter monetary policy ahead. Investors who bet on steady institutional inflows now face renewed questions about near-term direction.

The setback arrived Tuesday when the U.S. Senate blocked advancement of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The procedural vote fell short at 49-50. That bill had promised clearer rules for digital assets. Its stall removes a potential catalyst. Bitcoin dropped below $75,000 shortly after the news broke. Moneycontrol reported the move alongside rising Treasury yields and oil prices that rattled risk assets broadly.

Yet this isn’t the first time Bitcoin has absorbed bad headlines. Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded more than $450 million in outflows on Sept. 15. That marked the largest single-day redemption since June. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust and Fidelity’s fund led the exits. Still, the products have pulled in tens of billions since their 2024 launch. Demand hasn’t vanished. It has simply turned fickle.

Analysts remain split. Some see a base case around $80,000 by year-end. Others warn of a retest near $70,000 or lower. The Yahoo Finance piece from earlier this year laid out scenarios that still resonate. It highlighted how macroeconomic factors and institutional adoption could drive prices higher. But it also flagged risks from regulation and market cycles. Yahoo Finance explored whether Bitcoin could reach fresh highs before the fourth quarter. Current trading suggests patience is required.

Bank forecasts vary widely. Standard Chartered’s Geoffrey Kendrick targets $100,000 by December. He has dialed back earlier optimism but still sees structural buying from ETFs. Bernstein projects $150,000 by late 2026. The firm argues Bitcoin has moved past its traditional four-year cycle. JPMorgan goes further. It sees $170,000 possible if Bitcoin starts to mirror gold’s role in portfolios. These calls assume continued capital allocation by institutions.

Bearish voices push back. NYDIG, Citigroup and Fidelity sketch ranges from $38,000 to $75,000. They cite sticky inflation, potential Federal Reserve tightening and the lingering pull of the four-year cycle. CryptoSlate’s September model puts the median terminal price near $88,000 by mid-December. Its bullish case reaches $114,000 while the bearish scenario lands at $67,000. Black-swan stress tests point even lower. CryptoSlate updates these figures regularly based on market data.

September has brought mixed signals. Bitcoin rose nearly 25 percent in August. It briefly topped $82,000. Support held near $76,000 for much of the month. But the recent break below that level activates technical concerns. On-chain data from Glassnode shows heavy supply between $81,000 and $86,000. Whales accumulated 39,000 BTC worth roughly $3 billion in late August. That buying helped stabilize price then. Whether it returns now is unclear.

Short-term holders felt the pain this week. Exchange inflows from newer investors spiked. More than 23,000 BTC moved at a loss. It was the largest such capitulation event in September. Yet many shook it off quickly. Long-term holders continue to hodl. Their behavior has supported Bitcoin through previous drawdowns.

Federal Reserve policy looms large. Markets assign over 90 percent odds to a 25-basis-point rate hike at the September meeting. Chairman Kevin Warsh faces higher Treasury yields. The 10-year note crossed 5 percent this week for the first time since 2023. Global bond yields have hit multidecade highs in several economies. Higher rates typically weigh on speculative assets. Bitcoin is no exception.

And then there is the ETF story. Inflows rebounded modestly mid-month before the latest outflows. BlackRock and Fidelity captured most of the positive flows when they occurred. Grayscale’s GBTC continues to see redemptions. Concentration in a few funds highlights how institutional participation remains uneven. Cryptonomist noted the lopsided nature of recent activity on Sept. 14.

Prediction markets add another layer. Polymarket users give low odds for the Clarity Act becoming law this year. They price meaningful chances for Bitcoin both above $80,000 and back toward $70,000 in September. Traders appear prepared for volatility. Some models from AI platforms like Claude and Gemini point to ranges between $75,000 and $97,000. ChatGPT assigns the highest probability to a $74,000-$88,000 band for the month.

Technical levels matter now. A weekly close above $77,100 would ease immediate pressure. Failure to hold $73,500 opens the door to $70,000. That zone aligns with cost basis for holders of three to six months. Support at the bull market band sits near $70,000 as well. Breaking lower would test the cycle-low thesis that some analysts still defend.

Bitcoin’s history shows resilience. It has recovered from deeper drawdowns. The 2022 bear market took it below $20,000 before the current expansion. Institutional infrastructure built since then changes the equation. ETFs provide easier access. Public companies add Bitcoin to balance sheets. Miners pivot toward artificial intelligence deals worth billions even if revenue remains thin. CryptoSlate highlighted those AI-related mining developments this week.

Yet risks abound. Regulatory clarity remains elusive after the Senate vote. Macro conditions could tighten further if inflation data surprises to the upside. Oil above $80 per barrel adds to those pressures. Short-term traders face liquidations on both sides of the market. Leverage remains elevated in derivatives.

So what comes next? Bank targets cluster between $100,000 and $170,000 for 2026 under bullish assumptions. More conservative models see an average near $72,000 for the year. The gap reflects genuine uncertainty. Bitcoin no longer moves in isolation. It reacts to bond yields, Fed decisions and legislative outcomes in real time.

Investors who entered during the 2024-2025 run-up sit on varied returns. Those who bought the October 2025 peak near $126,000 remain underwater. Others who accumulated below $70,000 this summer hold gains. The dispersion in outcomes mirrors the dispersion in forecasts.

Market participants watch the Fed announcement closely. A hawkish tone could extend the current pullback. A surprise pause might spark relief buying. Either way, the path to higher prices looks bumpier than many expected months ago. Bitcoin has traded in a broad range for most of 2026. Breaking out will require sustained demand that overcomes these headwinds.

History suggests it eventually does. The question is when. And at what price. For now the market digests fresh losses and waits for the next clear signal.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/k7W3hgc

Atlassian Launches Agent Loops: AI Agents Automate Full Software Development in Jira

Atlassian has introduced a coordinated system for agentic engineering that connects autonomous AI agents across the software development lifecycle inside Jira. The new capability, called agent loops, allows a backlog item to flow automatically from planning through code generation, testing, and into a reviewed pull request without constant human prompting at every step.

The system relies on what Atlassian calls the Teamwork Graph, a live knowledge structure that maps how teams actually work. It pulls together information from Jira issues, Confluence pages, Bitbucket repositories, Compass components, and historical pull request patterns. When an agent begins work on a ticket, it first consults this graph to understand the surrounding context: which services are affected, how similar changes were implemented before, who owns related code, and what acceptance criteria mattered in past comparable stories. That shared memory reduces the common problem of agents producing code that looks correct in isolation but conflicts with team standards or architecture decisions.

Once the loop starts, a product agent interprets the backlog item and breaks it into granular tasks. A coding agent then generates implementation, drawing directly from the Teamwork Graph to match existing patterns, naming conventions, and error-handling approaches already used in the codebase. The generated code moves to an automated testing agent that writes and runs unit, integration, and contract tests. If failures appear, the loop returns control to the coding agent with specific failure logs and reattempts the fix. Only when all tests pass does the system open a pull request, complete with a detailed explanation of changes, links to related tickets, and suggested reviewers based on ownership data in the graph.

Atlassian demonstrated the loop handling an end-to-end feature addition in a sample microservices application. The entire cycle from backlog item to merged pull request completed with minimal engineer intervention beyond final approval. Early internal testing showed that loops can reduce cycle time on well-scoped tickets by more than half compared with traditional developer workflows, although results vary by complexity and team maturity.

Alongside the agent loops announcement, Atlassian released new developer experience measurement tools integrated into Jira and Compass. These tools track a set of signals that research has connected to actual engineering output: deployment frequency, lead time for changes, change failure rate, and time spent in context switching. The measurements go beyond simple velocity metrics by incorporating qualitative signals such as satisfaction scores from periodic developer surveys and the volume of blocked time logged against tickets.

The DX analysis accompanying the launch examined data from hundreds of organizations using Atlassian platforms. Teams whose members maintained the highest density of connections inside the Teamwork Graph—meaning they actively updated documentation, linked related issues, and kept component ownership information current—shipped approximately 64 percent more features per developer over a six-month period than teams with lower graph density. The correlation held after controlling for team size, domain complexity, and engineering tenure. Atlassian presents the finding as evidence that shared organizational memory becomes even more valuable when AI agents can read and act on that memory at scale.

The company positioned the combined release as a practical step toward what it calls coordinated agentic engineering rather than isolated point tools. Instead of developers copying context into separate AI chat windows, the system keeps every agent operating inside the same information environment that human teams already use. Jira remains the single source of truth: agents create sub-tasks, update status, attach artifacts, and log decisions without requiring users to switch applications.

Security and governance received attention in the design. All agents operate under the same permission model as the human user who triggered the loop. An agent cannot access repositories or services that the triggering engineer could not reach. Administrators can set organization-wide policies that require human review before any generated code reaches production branches. Audit logs capture every decision an agent makes, including which parts of the Teamwork Graph it consulted and why it chose particular implementation approaches.

Early adopters include both established enterprises and smaller product teams. One financial services company reported using loops to handle routine API extensions, freeing senior engineers to focus on complex regulatory requirements that still demand deep human judgment. A gaming studio adopted the system for repetitive gameplay feature scaffolding, noting that the generated code consistently followed the studio’s established architectural patterns because the Teamwork Graph captured those patterns accurately.

Atlassian built the loops on top of its existing Forge platform, which allows the agents to run in a secure, isolated environment close to customer data. The architecture avoids sending sensitive code or proprietary business logic to external large language model providers unless customers explicitly choose to route certain workloads through models hosted by OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google. Most processing happens inside models fine-tuned by Atlassian on anonymized public code and internal best-practice patterns.

The DX measurement tools introduce a new dashboard inside Jira that visualizes four key quadrants: throughput, stability, satisfaction, and cognitive load. Throughput combines deployment frequency with story points completed per engineer. Stability tracks failure rates and mean time to recovery. Satisfaction pulls from short pulse surveys sent through Jira. Cognitive load measures time spent waiting for builds, attending unplanned meetings, and chasing context across tools. The system can segment these metrics by team, product area, or individual contributor, allowing engineering leaders to identify specific bottlenecks.

One notable pattern in the DX data involves the relationship between documentation hygiene and delivery speed. Teams that kept their component catalog in Compass up to date and maintained clear links between Jira tickets and architectural decision records showed both higher agent success rates and better human developer throughput. When the Teamwork Graph contains stale information, agents generate more incorrect assumptions, leading to increased pull request rework. The 64 percent productivity difference appeared most strongly in organizations that treated knowledge maintenance as an ongoing engineering responsibility rather than a documentation afterthought.

Atlassian plans to expand agent capabilities in coming quarters. Future loops will include design agents that can propose user interface changes consistent with existing design systems, documentation agents that update Confluence pages in parallel with code changes, and release agents that coordinate rollout plans across multiple services. Each new agent type will continue to consult the same Teamwork Graph, creating a growing network of specialized workers that share context without duplication.

The company also announced an open beta for custom agent development. Teams can define their own loop patterns using a visual workflow builder inside Jira. A retail company, for example, might create a specialized loop that automatically generates new product catalog endpoints whenever a business analyst adds an item to the merchandising backlog. Because the custom loop references the Teamwork Graph, the generated code automatically includes the correct pricing service integration patterns already used by that organization.

Feedback from the initial pilot programs highlighted both strengths and limitations. Engineers appreciated that the generated pull requests included clear explanations and linked directly to original requirements, making review faster. However, participants noted that highly novel features or those involving significant refactoring still required substantial human guidance. The loops perform best on work that has clear precedents inside the Teamwork Graph. As organizations expand their graph with more historical decisions and architectural patterns, the range of tasks that agents can handle autonomously is expected to grow.

Pricing for the agent loops follows Atlassian’s existing model of per-user subscriptions with additional consumption charges based on the number of loop executions. Organizations already on Premium or Enterprise plans for Jira and Bitbucket receive basic loop functionality at no extra cost during the initial rollout period. Advanced DX analytics and custom agent development carry separate add-on fees.

The launch reflects Atlassian’s broader strategy of embedding intelligence directly into the tools where engineering work already happens. Rather than asking developers to adopt new AI platforms, the company brings agent capabilities into the familiar Jira interface and ties them to the organizational memory already captured in its products. The combination of autonomous loops and quantitative developer experience measurement gives both individual contributors and engineering leaders concrete data about where AI assistance accelerates delivery and where human expertise remains essential.

As more organizations begin experimenting with these coordinated agents, the industry will gather evidence about which types of software work benefit most from autonomous execution and which still require close human oversight. Atlassian’s early data suggests that the quality of shared team knowledge may prove as important as the sophistication of the underlying models. Teams that invest in maintaining accurate, connected information appear positioned to gain the largest advantage as agent loops become a standard part of the development process.

The release marks a concrete milestone in moving AI assistance from individual productivity aids toward coordinated systems that can carry out multi-step engineering workflows. By grounding those workflows in the actual collaboration patterns of each organization, captured in the Teamwork Graph, Atlassian aims to make agentic development feel like an extension of existing team practices rather than a replacement for them. The accompanying DX measurement tools provide organizations with visibility into whether those agents are delivering measurable improvements in both speed and developer satisfaction.

Over the next year, continued refinement of the loops, expansion of available agent types, and deeper integration with the measurement dashboard should give engineering organizations richer options for deciding which work to assign to autonomous systems and which to keep in human hands. The 64 percent productivity correlation observed in the initial analysis offers an early indicator that attention to organizational memory may become a competitive differentiator in an environment where AI agents can read and act on that memory at scale.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/nec8Gwa

Cops Type ‘LMAO’ and Keyboard Mash to Query Vast License Plate Camera Networks

A deputy in Lake County, Indiana, once scanned a license plate across more than 19,000 cameras spanning 1,558 cities and towns. His official reason for the query? “LMAO.”

That single entry captures a pattern now documented across dozens of police agencies. Officers have filled the mandatory “reason” field in Flock Safety’s surveillance system with jokes, insults, shrugs and random keystrokes. The revelations come from an analysis of audit logs obtained through public records requests.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reviewed the data and found entries such as “LOL,” “Hehe,” “Haha,” “idk,” “blah,” “TBD” and the longer plea “robbery I don’t remember the case number leave me alone.” Some officers typed insults like “idiot,” “dickhead,” “shithead,” “fuck this new search engine” or “WEIRD KID.” Others simply mashed the keyboard: “asdfg,” “gyghkkghghjkghjk,” “jhjhjkhj,” “nmbvcbnm.”

These searches took place from 2023 through late 2025. Flock altered its system afterward, making such logs harder to obtain through open records. Yet the entries expose something deeper than sloppy typing. They reveal a casual attitude toward a tool that tracks vehicle movements on a massive scale.

Flock Safety has built one of the largest automated license plate reader networks in the United States. Its cameras capture images of passing cars, extract plate numbers and store location data. Police can query the system for specific plates or broader patterns. The company markets the technology as a crime-fighting asset. But the audit logs tell a different story. And they arrive at a moment when Flock faces growing scrutiny.

Last month, USA TODAY published an investigation that examined more than 75 million license plate searches conducted by officers from 6,300 agencies between January 2023 and July 2026. The analysis uncovered patterns of potential misuse. At least 19 police and sheriff’s office employees in five states were arrested, fired, placed on administrative leave or investigated in the following weeks for improper use of the system.

One case involved a Georgia officer who queried her estranged husband’s plate almost daily for months, sometimes dozens of times in a single day. Another Texas detective searched more than 80,000 images without a warrant while investigating a suspected abortion. These examples sit alongside the frivolous entries uncovered by the EFF.

But the problem runs larger than isolated jokes. In a separate dataset of 11.4 million nationwide Flock searches over six months, the ACLU determined that more than 14 percent listed only the word “investigation,” with no case number or further detail. Similar vagueness appears repeatedly. Officers write “test,” a single letter or nothing at all.

The scale matters. A single query can pull data from thousands of cameras across hundreds of jurisdictions. One Goshen, Indiana, officer searched 6,474 automated license plate reader networks — representing 82,413 cameras — and entered “idk” as the reason. Harris County, Texas, sheriff’s employees used “LOL” or “lol” as a case number on multiple occasions. Kankakee County, Illinois, officers chose “idk” or “idk lol.”

Eatonton, Georgia, police entered strings such as “HJKNUILH,” “uiokjk.kuj” and “GJLHBNMN.” An Atlanta officer used “asdfga.” These are not outliers. The EFF identified button-mashing as its own category of search behavior.

Such practices raise basic questions about accountability. The “reason” field exists to create a record of legitimate law enforcement need. When that field contains gibberish, the record becomes meaningless. Privacy advocates argue the entire system operates with insufficient oversight. Warrants are rarely required. Retention policies vary. Data sharing crosses jurisdictional lines with little transparency.

Flock has responded to criticism by pointing to its value in solving serious crimes. The company notes that its cameras have helped recover stolen vehicles, locate missing persons and support investigations into violent offenses. Executives have said the technology gives police a tool they would otherwise lack. Yet the same system that catches real offenders also enables casual browsing, personal vendettas and outright abuse.

Recent news shows the tension playing out in real time. On the same day the EFF findings appeared, Atlanta officials announced plans to introduce citywide surveillance rules. An internal police audit of 115,578 Flock inquiries flagged 79 searches for further review. Mayor Andre Dickens stated that “technology that gives government extraordinary capabilities must come with extraordinary accountability.” The proposed ordinance would make internal police safeguards legally binding across all city departments.

Public backlash has taken other forms. In College Station, Texas, a 19-year-old man cut power cables to two Flock cameras and covered them with American flags. He now faces a criminal mischief charge. Similar vandalism has occurred elsewhere as residents grow uneasy with the expanding camera presence. Flock itself reports that its network recently surpassed 100,000 cameras nationwide, even as more than 50 cities have canceled contracts over concerns about data sharing with federal agencies.

The company adjusted its systems in December 2025 after increased public attention. Those changes made certain audit logs less accessible through records requests. The timing aligns with the end of the period examined by the EFF. Critics see the move as an effort to reduce transparency rather than address underlying problems.

Earlier reporting added context. The Houston Chronicle documented how Houston police conducted thousands of searches with vague justifications such as “investigation,” “suspect” or simple gibberish like “asdf.” Usage grew rapidly. Weekly searches doubled in less than a year. Some officers admitted to running “random” checks while on patrol.

WIRED examined Flock’s newer AI-powered tools. The systems now allow officers to search not just by plate but by descriptive prompts. An officer can ask for vehicles or people matching certain characteristics within a drawn geographic area. The technology stops short of facial recognition but edges closer to broader behavioral tracking. Privacy researchers worry that weak controls on the “reason” field become even more consequential when queries grow more sophisticated.

The EFF’s report lands amid a wider debate. Some lawmakers push for stricter rules. Colorado recently required warrants before sharing automated license plate data with federal agencies. Other states consider similar measures. Police departments defend the technology as essential for public safety. They argue that focusing on misuse ignores the many legitimate successes.

Yet the logs keep surfacing. Insults directed at suspects or the system itself. Expressions of ignorance or indifference. Pure nonsense. Each entry represents a moment when an officer decided that documenting a real justification was unnecessary. Or perhaps too much trouble.

That indifference carries consequences. Every plate captured contributes to a detailed map of movement. Over time, those maps can reveal where people live, work, worship or seek medical care. When the system treats such data casually, trust erodes. Residents already express discomfort with cameras that never sleep. The joke entries only heighten that unease.

Flock continues to expand. New contracts outpace cancellations. The network grows larger and more interconnected. At the same time, journalists, activists and some officials dig deeper into how the technology is actually used. The gap between the company’s promises and the audit logs remains wide.

Short searches. Long retention. Easy access. Minimal friction. The combination creates conditions where “LMAO” can stand in for legitimate police work. Until the reasons improve, the system will continue to invite skepticism. And more headlines like this one.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/tZDNCSR