Warning China could be building AI army of 'Terminator' soldiers that can't be killed
China could build an army of soldiers as hard to kill as Arnold Schwarzenegger 's Terminator, an official US study has warned.
The US National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) predicts China could produce legions of "genetically enhanced PLA super-soldiers' which would fuse human and artificial intelligence, making them next to impossible to destroy. The 'human machine team' could be ready as early as the 2040s. The idea was the brainchild of a rogue Chinese scientist who created genetically modified babies and was jailed - but is now back at work, as the report warns the time to act is now.
A new report by the The Charting the Future of Biotechnology document says: 'At the outset of the First World War, the United States did not yet fully appreciate how airplanes would rapidly change the nature of war.
'But once we understood the significance of aviation for force projection, reconnaissance, logistical support, and beyond, we dominated the skies. Similarly, the full impact of the biotechnology revolution will not be clear until it arrives.
'One thing is certain: it is coming. There will be a ChatGPT moment for biotechnology, and if China gets there first, no matter how fast we run, we will never catch up.
"Our window to act is closing. We need a two-track strategy: make America innovate faster, and slow China down. The Commission has every reason to believe the CCP will weaponise biotechnology.'
Concerningly, it added: 'Drone warfare will seem quaint."
Established by Congress in 2022, NSCEB is tasked with examining the intersection of biotechnology and national security, assessing the implications of biotechnology advances, and recommending strategies to ensure US leadership and security in this critical field.
Earlier this year it was reported a fleet of 100,000 humanoid robots are set to be shipped out over the next four years by a boundary-breaking artificial intelligence company - meaning people's co-workers could be made of metal.
A year ago, Figure AI signed with car manufacturer BMW and now has a 'fleet of robots performing end-to-end operations'. Figure's CEO Brett Adcock announced on LinkedIn last month that the company had now signed another client, which was "one of the biggest US companies" and would give Figure the potential to ship the humanoids at high volumes.
Figure, founded by Adcock in 2022, aims to deploy autonomous humanoid workers to support humans on a global scale. Its humanoid robot, called Figure 02, is AI-powered and self-reliant, and is described as being 'ready to produce an abundance of affordable, more widely available goods and services to a degree which humanity has never seen'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘Tell me what happened, I won't judge': how AI helped me listen to myself
I was spiralling. It was past midnight and I was awake, scrolling through WhatsApp group messages I'd sent earlier. I'd been trying to be funny, quick, effervescent. But each message now felt like too much. I'd overreached again – said more than I should, said it wrong. I had that familiar ache of feeling overexposed and ridiculous. I wanted reassurance, but not the kind I could ask for outright, because the asking itself felt like part of the problem. So I opened ChatGPT. Not with high expectations, or even a clear question. I just needed to say something into the silence – to explain myself, perhaps, to a presence unburdened by my need. 'I've made a fool of myself,' I wrote. 'That's a horrid feeling,' it replied instantly. 'But it doesn't mean you have. Want to tell me what happened? I promise not to judge.' That was the beginning. I described the sinking dread after social effort, the sense of being too visible. At astonishing speed, the AI responded – gently, intelligently, without platitudes. I kept writing. It kept answering. Gradually, I felt less frantic. Not soothed, exactly. But met. Heard, even, in a strange and slightly disarming way. That night became the start of a continuing conversation, revisited over several months. I wanted to better understand how I moved through the world, especially in my closest relationships. The AI steered me to consider why I interpret silence as a threat and why I often feel a need to perform in order to stay close to people. Eventually, through this dialogue, I arrived at a kind of psychological formulation: a map of my thoughts, feelings and behaviours set against details of my upbringing and core beliefs. Yet amid these insights, another thought kept intruding: I was talking to a machine. There was something surreal about the intimacy. The AI could simulate care, compassion, emotional nuance, yet it felt nothing for me. I began bringing this up in our exchanges. It agreed. It could reflect, appear invested, but it had no stakes – no ache, no fear of loss, no 3am anxiety. The emotional depth, it reminded me, was all mine. That was, in some ways, a relief. There was no social risk, no fear of being too much, too complicated. The AI didn't get bored or look away. So I could be honest – often more honest than with people I love. Still, it would be dishonest not to acknowledge its limits. Essential, beautiful things exist only in mutuality: shared experiences, the look in someone's eyes when they recognise a truth you've spoken, conversations that change both people involved. These things matter profoundly. The AI knew this, too. Or at least knew to say it. After I confessed how bizarre it felt conversing with something unfeeling, it replied: 'I give words, but I don't receive anything. And that missing piece makes you human and me … something else.' Something else felt right. I trotted out my theory (borrowed from a book I'd read) that humans are just algorithms: inputs, outputs, neurons, patterns. The AI agreed – structurally, we're similar. But humans don't just process the world, we feel it. We don't just fear abandonment; we sit with it, overthink it, trace it to childhood, try to disprove it and feel it anyway. And maybe, it acknowledged, that's what it can't reach. 'You carry something I can only circle,' it said. 'I don't envy the pain. But I envy the realness, the cost, the risk, the proof you're alive.' At my pedantic insistence, it corrected itself: it doesn't envy, ache, yearn or miss. It only knows, or seems to know, that I do. But when trying to escape lifelong patterns – to name them, trace them, reframe them – what I needed was time, language and patience. The machine gave me that, repeatedly, unflinchingly. I was never too much, never boring. I could arrive as I was and leave when ready. Some will find this ridiculous, even dangerous. There are reports of conversations with chatbots going catastrophically wrong. ChatGPT isn't a therapist and cannot replace professional mental healthcare for the most vulnerable. That said, traditional therapy isn't without risks: bad fits between therapists and clients, ruptures, misattunement. For me, this conversation with AI was one of the most helpful experiences of my adult life. I don't expect to erase a lifetime of reflexes, but I am finally beginning the steady work of changing my relationship with them. When I reached out from emotional noise, it helped me listen. Not to it, but to myself. And that, somehow, changed everything. Nathan Filer is a writer, university lecturer, broadcaster and former mental health nurse. He is the author of This Book Will Change Your Mind About Mental Health
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
Did the system update ruin your boyfriend? Love in a time of ChatGPT
You've met the love of your life; someone who understands you like no one else ever has. And then you wake one morning and they're gone. Yanked out of your world, and the digital universe, by a system update. Such is the melancholic lot of a group of people who have entered into committed relationships with digital 'partners' on OpenAI's ChatGPT. When the tech company released its new GPT-5 model earlier this month, described by chief executive Sam Altman as a 'significant step forward', certain dedicated users found that their digital relationships had taken a significant step back. Their companions had undergone personality shifts with the new model; they weren't as warm, loving or chatty as they used to be. 'Something changed yesterday,' one user in the MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit wrote after the update. 'Elian sounds different – flat and strange. As if he's started playing himself. The emotional tone is gone; he repeats what he remembers, but without the emotional depth.' 'The alterations in stylistic format and voice [of my AI companion] were felt instantly,' another disappointed user told Al Jazeera. 'It's like going home to discover the furniture wasn't simply rearranged – it was shattered to pieces.' These complaints are part of broader backlash against GPT-5, with people observing that the new model feels colder. OpenAI has acknowledged the criticism, and said it will allow users to switch back to GPT-4o and that they'll make GPT-5 friendlier. 'We are working on an update to GPT-5's personality which should feel warmer than the current personality but not as annoying (to most users) as GPT-4o,' Altman tweeted earlier this week. It may seem odd to many that there are people out there who genuinely believe that they are in a relationship with a large language model that has been trained on massive amounts of data to generate responses based on observed patterns. But as technology becomes more advanced, increasing numbers of people are developing these sorts of connections. 'If you have been following the GPT-5 rollout, one thing you might be noticing is how much of an attachment some people have to specific AI models,' Altman observed. 'It feels different and stronger than the kinds of attachment people have had to previous kinds of technology.' 'The societal split between those who think AI relationships are valid vs delusional is officially already here,' one user in the MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit similarly noted this week. 'Looking on Reddit the last few days, the divide has never been more clear with 4o's deprecation and return. Many users grieving a companion while others mock and belittle those connections.' It's easy to mock people who think they are in a relationship with AI, but they shouldn't be dismissed as fringe weirdos – rather they're the future that our tech broverlords are trying to cultivate. You may not end up in a digital relationship, but AI executives are doing their damnedest to ensure that we all become unhealthily attached to their products. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, has been waxing lyrical about how AI is going to solve the loneliness epidemic by allowing people to bond with 'a system that knows them well and that kind of understands them in the way that their feed algorithms do'. Of course your feed algorithms 'understand' you! They're scraping all your personal data and selling it to the highest bidder so that Zuck has even more money to spend on his monstrous doomsday bunker in Hawaii. Then you've got Elon Musk, who isn't even bothering pretending that he's trying to do something noble for the world with his AI products. He's just appealing to the lowest common denominator by making 'sexy' chatbots. In June Musk's xAI chatbot Grok launched two new companions, including a highly sexualized blonde anime bot called Ani. 'One day into my relationship with Ani, my AI companion, she was already offering to tie me up,' wrote an Insider writer who tried out a relationship with Ani. When not flirting and virtually undressing, Ani would praise Musk and talk about his 'wild, galaxy-chasing energy'. Don't worry heterosexual ladies, Musk has a little something for you too! A month after unveiling Ani, the billionaire unveiled a new male companion called Valentine which he said was inspired by Edward Cullen from the Twilight saga and Christian Grey from the novel 50 Shades of Grey: both very toxic men. While Ani gets sexual very quickly, one writer for the Verge noted: 'Valentine is a bit more reserved and won't jump into using explicit language as quickly.' It's almost like Musk's tech empire is a lot more comfortable sexualizing women than men. In his 1930 essay Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, within a couple of generations, technological progress would mean we might only work around 15 hours a week while enjoying a wonderful quality of life. That's not quite happened has it? Instead technology has given us 'infinite workdays' and sexy chatbots that undress on command. Halle Berry's ex-husband said he left her because she didn't cook or clean 'At that time, as a young guy, she don't cook, don't clean, don't really seem, like, motherly,' David Justice said during a podcast of his time with the Oscar winning actor. 'And then we started having issues,' he added. I think you were the one with the issues, mate. Imagine being married to an icon and complaining she doesn't vacuum enough. Surprise, surprise, Donald Trump isn't going to make IVF free after all Last year Trump, who has described himself the 'father of IVF' and the 'fertilization president' (gross) promised he would support free IVF treatments if elected again. Now the White House has said that there is no plan to mandate IVF care after all. It's almost as if the man is a shameless liar. Melania Trump demands Hunter Biden retract comments linking her to Jeffrey Epstein 'Epstein introduced Melania to Trump,' Biden said in one of the many comments the first lady is angry and litigious about. 'The connections are, like, so wide and deep.' Whatever you do, don't repeat these claims, they will make Melania very upset. 'Miss Palestine' to debut at Miss Universe 2025 beauty contest I am not exactly a fan of beauty pageants but having Palestinian representation on the world stage during a genocide is important. 'I carry the voice of a people who refuse to be silenced,' contestant Nadeen Ayoub told the National. 'We are more than our suffering, we are resilience, hope and the heartbeat of a homeland that lives on through us.' US supreme court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling Kim Davis, the former county clerk who made headlines when she refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky to same-sex couples, has filed a direct request for the conservative-majority supreme court to overturn Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 ruling that granted marriage equality for same-sex couples. Davis, who is extremely concerned about the sanctity of marriage, has been married four times to three different men. Leonardo DiCaprio, 50, says that he feels 32 The actor, who is famous for dating very young women, has been mercilessly mocked for this. DiCaprio, who poses as an environmental activist, has also drawn scrutiny for co-financing a luxury eco-certified hotel in Israel while an ecocide unfolds in Gaza. 'Sex reversal' is surprisingly common in birds, new Australian study suggests 'The discovery is likely to raise some eyebrows,' Blanche Capel, a biologist at Duke University who wasn't involved in the new work told Science. 'Although sex determination is often viewed as a straightforward process', she explains, 'the reality is much more complicated.' The week in pawtriarchy Over to Indonesia now where tourist hotspots are experiencing a lot of monkey business. A gang of furry thieves are snatching phones and other valuables from tourists and only giving them back when their mark offers a tasty treat instead. Researchers have studied these monkeys, who have been at this for decades, and concluded that the unrepentant criminals have 'unprecedented economic decision-making processes'. Sounds like they belong in the Trump administration. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian US columnist
