There are thousands of comments here, so I apologize if this is just a repeat of what others already have stated. However. I want to say that this move by the US Gov will have a profound impact on how Europe will be dealing with US based companies in the future - including Anthropic, OpenAI and Google. I am totally convinced, as a European that this will prove over time to be a turning point in the history of European relationship with the US, and US' long term soft power and position. Of all the stupidity the US gov. has done, this is one of the dumbest move they've done. It will hurt the relations between Europe and The US, it will hurt the economy and it will hurt progress. The world will not be the same after this.
It is interesting to note that the majority of respondents in this survey want 'the system' to challenge existing views and inaccurate information, while the survey clearly concludes that chatbots have the potential to be 'bubble builders'. It suggests that as AI becomes a companion and 'emotional infrastructure', the likelihood of it acting as a neutral or challenging arbiter of truth decreases, as intimacy relies on validation rather than correction. Maybe that's the next step for the companies behind the broadly used models, to set the interface up in a way that helps the users to get what they actually want from interacting with them. You can easily instruct i.e. Gemini yourself to behave as a 'wise mentor' that guides you to see broader perspectives and correct false data, however, I suspect most people will not configure their bots at all,
This incident shifts LLMs from being only productivity tools to strategic munitions – ready or not. It shouldn't surprise us, but the technical capabilities have reached a point where the 'made in the US' is an active risk for non-US entities given the conflict we see now. Maybe this will trigger the start of an AI arms race where Europe (and others) must secure their own sovereign infrastructure and models. As a European citizen I prefer a balanced world with options rather than a West dominated by US hegemony. Interestingly, if you look at what Anthropic keep insisting on in regards of regulations and ethical use of its models EU should be where Anthropic finds its safe haven. Maybe they should just move their HQ to Brussels, or Barcelona if they prefer a more ‘sunny California’ like vibe.
ASML Holding is dominating the chip technology with their machines. It's not the lack of invention or intellectual capability that holds Europe back from the digital industry, it's the lack of willing long term European invenstors. If you want to scale your digital tech startup in Europe the most viable way is to look to the US for investors.
The European digital scene isn't a pipeline problem; it's an institutional 'safe harbor' problem. We have world-class publicly funded research and education, and the talent, just look at the startup floor at Vivatech or WebSummit, but European Private Equity and late-stage capital remain structurally locked into 'Old Economy' models.
In Europe, valuation is still largely tied to tangible assets and steady EBITDA. This creates a massive 'Patient Capital' gap. While US investors have evolved to price the long-term unit economics of digital scaling, where high initial burn is the cost of building a global moat, European private equity remains culturally risk-averse. They prefer the predictable, incremental returns of a specialized factory over the 'winner-takes-most' volatility of digital platforms. By prioritizing collateral over code, our domestic capital is effectively subsidizing the past rather than financing the future. That's our problem.
I have done the same and it seems to have no consequence. I suspect YouTube only wants to track the opposition to shorts, not to provide a personal preference for their users. This uBlock filter is therefore much appreciated
For your information: The Norwegian Government refers to it as a letter from the President of the United States to the Prime Minister of Norway. So no, this is not a random tweet.
If I remember correctly, the message was originally sent as a text message, but when a head of state sends a written message to another head of state, and that message is then circulated as an official FYI to the sender’s ambassadors, it is widely regarded as official communication.
The article itself is an opinion piece, yes, but the letter has been extensively reported across Europe and internationally. I could just as well have referenced one of those reports.
I wouldn't say that. From the article; "The text was forwarded by the White House National Security Council to ambassadors in Washington, and was clearly intended to be widely shared. Here it is":
Dear Jonas:
Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT
No need to apologize, quite the opposite. This is exactly the kind of insight I was hoping for. I read the NYT and other U.S. papers and get the editorial perspective, but I still feel, and many here in Scandinavia feel the same, that we can’t fully understand what’s going on at the level of everyday experience in the U.S. That’s why your ‘street‑level analysis’ is valuable and much appreciated.
As a Norwegian, I am genuinely curious how US citizens are reacting to Trump’s letter To Norway and demands.
Setting politics aside for a moment: Is there actual public support in the USA for demanding territory from Denmark? I see polling suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Americans, around 75%, oppose the idea of purchasing or seizing Greenland. It clearly isn't a popular demand among the general public. But do the people who voted for Trump actually back him on this specific issue?
To us in the Nordics, this is baffling. Greenland has been Scandinavian territory since the year 10th century. It was part of the establishment of the nation of Norway in 1261 and remained with Denmark after the Kalmar Union ended. The land has been inhabited by the Thule people and Scandinavians for over a millennium. Yet, the US Government now argues it 'should' belong to the USA and is threatening close NATO allies with tariffs to force a sale.
I am especially curious about the 'Golden Dome' justification. President Trump claims full control of Greenland is 'vital' for this new missile defense shield. Do Americans accept this narrative? From our side of the Atlantic, it looks like a pretext—existing treaties already allow the US to operate the Pituffik Space Base for exactly this kind of defense. Why is annexation suddenly considered 'vital' when the current alliance has worked for decades?
High-profile Republican Senators have publicly called the idea 'absurd' and 'weapons-grade stupid.' How is it, then, that the US Congress and Senate seem unable to stop these threats?
I would appreciate an American perspective: Is this seen as a legitimate foreign policy move or an overreach by the executive branch? Are we just witnessing a train wreck in the making on both sides of the Atlantic, with no option to stop it?
That is something to worry about, agreed. So, the quality and the reliance of AI is what we should focus on. In addition we should be able to keep track (and records of) how AI has used and build its narrative and conclutions.
I find this article strange in its logic. If the use of AI generated content is problematic as a principle I can understand the conflict. Then no AI should be used to "transcribe and interpret a video" at all - period. But if the concern is accuracy in the AI "transcript" and not the support from AI as such, isn't it a good thing that the AI generated text is deleted after the officer has processed the text and finalized their report?
That said, I believe it is important to aknowlegde the fact that human memory, experience and interpretation of "what really happened" is flawed, isn't that why the body cameras are in use in the first place? If everyone believed police officers already where able to recall the absolute thruth of everything that happens in situations, why bother with the cameras?
Personally I do not think it is a good idea to use AI to write full police reports based on body camera recordings. However, as a support in the same way the video recordings are available, why not? If, in the future, AI will write accurate "body cam" based reports I would not have any problems with it as long as the video is still available to be checked. A full report should, in my opinion, always contain additional contextual info from the police involved and witnesses to add what the camera recordings not necessarily reflect or contain.
I follow the author's arguments and agree completely. He perfectly articulated how the creative industries have long operated as a "protection racket" with skewed economics. It’s extraordinary how many artists and writers seem not to understand this game. You'd think their collecting societies would, but they don't. It is sad, and the artists loose.
The IA's work is essential for historians and archivists who depend on it for research and preservation. However, this is not a concern for the music industry or the major labels.
The argument that the industry's lawsuit against IA might ultimately harm its own interests—by jeopardizing valuable archival resources—rests on a misconception: that the industry cares about art and artists. It doesn’t. The industry's focus is shifting toward AI-generated music and hired musicians, prioritizing commercial output over artistic legacy. Their future is not tied to the past but to what comes next. In this scenario, history is not a resource—it’s competition.
I think it is increasingly clear that Europe, Canada, the UK, and other Western liberal democracies are laying the groundwork for a new strategic direction, one where the United States is no longer viewed as a dependable superpower or a guaranteed partner.
This does not mean the US will be written off entirely, at least not in the foreseeable future. However, the era in which the US could dictate the global agenda, particularly in Europe, appears to be coming to an end. A recent example is the US Vice President’s speech in Germany, followed by meetings with the AfD rather than the German Chancellor - an unmistakable signal that Washington no longer prioritizes its European allies in the same way.
A similar shift may be seen in the area of technology. Reliance on American tech companies and investments is likely to decrease, with governments and businesses seeking alternatives. Even China could play a role in this transition, despite the security risks it presents. Economic growth depends on global trade, and many nations may be unwilling to let US protectionism dictate their technological and economic choices.
It is an unexpected turn, but in hindsight, one we could have seen coming. The transformation of the US Republican Party, coupled with growing public support for politicians who embrace extreme rhetoric, reject objective facts, and show little respect for science or democratic principles, has reshaped the country’s global standing. Many of these figures claim to uphold democracy but, from an outside perspective, promote an increasingly authoritarian vision through their policies and rhetoric.
Ultimately, it is up to the American people to choose their government and shape their society. However, the US has become increasingly unstable and polarized, straying from both common sense and the ideals of a liberal democracy. As this internal turmoil continues, it is no surprise that its traditional allies are beginning to seek a future less dependent on American leadership.
It’s reassuring to see an expert bringing facts and perspective into the public discourse. Whether the right people will read it is another matter, but I find this article both thorough and clear.