Trump Vows to Lift Sanctions on Syria
"Balance of Power: Late Edition" focuses on the intersection of politics and global business. Rep. Sean Casten (D) Illinois, states the tax package GOP members of Congress are working on is "not a serious tax package." James Jeffrey, Former US Ambassador to Iraq & Turkey, discusses President Trump announcing he will lift sanctions on Syria. Rep. Lisa McClain (R) Michigan and Republican House Conference Chairwoman discusses why the tax bill needs to pass amid some Republican members of Congress not supporting the tax package for various reasons. (Source: Bloomberg)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
AI Safety: Beyond AI Hype To Hybrid Intelligence
Autonomous electric cars with artificial intelligence self driving on metropolis road, 3d rendering The artificial intelligence revolution has reached a critical inflection point. While CEOs rush to deploy AI agents and boast about automation gains, a sobering reality check is emerging from boardrooms worldwide: ChatGPT 4o has 61% hallucinations according to simple QA developed by OpenAI, and even the most advanced AI systems fail basic reliability tests with alarming frequency. In a recent OpEd Dario Amodei, Anthropic's CEO, called for regulating AI arguing that voluntary safety measures are insufficient. Meanwhile, companies like Klarna — once poster children for AI-first customer service — are quietly reversing course on their AI agent-only approach, and rehiring human representatives. These aren't isolated incidents; they're the cusp of the iceberg signaling a fundamental misalignment between AI hype and AI reality. Today's AI safety landscape resembles a high-stakes experiment conducted without a safety net. Three competing governance models have emerged: the EU's risk-based regulatory approach, the US's innovation-first decentralized framework, and China's state-led centralized model. Yet none adequately addresses the core challenge facing business leaders: how to harness AI's transformative potential while managing its probabilistic unpredictability. The stakes couldn't be higher. Four out of five finance chiefs consider AI "mission-critical," while 71% of technology leaders don't trust their organizations to manage future AI risks effectively. This paradox — simultaneous dependence and distrust — creates a dangerous cognitive dissonance in corporate decision-making. AI hallucinations remain a persistent and worsening challenge in 2025, where artificial intelligence systems confidently generate false or misleading information that appears credible but lacks factual basis. Recent data reveals the scale of this problem: in just the first quarter of 2025, close to 13,000 AI-generated articles were removed from online platforms due to hallucinated content, while OpenAI's latest reasoning systems show hallucination rates reaching 33% for their o3 model and a staggering 48% for o4-mini when answering questions about public figures 48% error rate. The legal sector has been particularly affected, with more than 30 instances documented in May 2025 of lawyers using evidence that featured AI hallucinations. These fabrications span across domains, from journalism where ChatGPT falsely attributed 76% of quotes from popular journalism sites to healthcare where AI models might misdiagnose medical conditions. The phenomenon has become so problematic that 39% of AI-powered customer service bots were pulled back or reworked due to hallucination-related errors highlighting the urgent need for better verification systems and user awareness when interacting with AI-generated content. The future requires a more nuanced and holistic approach than the traditional either-or perspective. Forward-thinking organizations are abandoning the binary choice between human-only and AI-only approaches. Instead, they're embracing hybrid intelligence — deliberately designed human-machine collaboration that leverages each party's strengths while compensating for their respective weaknesses. Mixus, which went public in June 2025, exemplifies this shift. Rather than replacing humans with autonomous agents, their platform creates "colleague-in-the-loop" systems where AI handles routine processing while humans provide verification at critical decision points. This approach acknowledges a fundamental truth that the autonomous AI evangelists ignore: AI without natural intelligence is like building a Porsche and giving it to people without a driver's license. The autonomous vehicle industry learned this lesson the hard way. After years of promising fully self-driving cars, manufacturers now integrate human oversight into every system. The most successful deployments combine AI's computational power with human judgment, creating resilient systems that gracefully handle edge cases and unexpected scenarios. LawZero is another initiative in this direction, which seeks to promote scientist AI as a safer, more secure alternative to many of the commercial AI systems being developed and released today. Scientist AI is non-agentic, meaning it doesn't have agency or work autonomously, but instead behaves in response to human input and goals. The underpinning belief is that AI should be cultivated as a global public good — developed and used safely towards human flourishing. It should be prosocial. While media attention focuses on AI hallucinations, business leaders face more immediate threats. Agency decay — the gradual erosion of human decision-making capabilities — poses a systemic risk as employees become overly dependent on AI recommendations. Mass persuasion capabilities enable sophisticated social engineering attacks. Market concentration in AI infrastructure creates single points of failure that could cripple entire industries. 47% of business leaders consider people using AI without proper oversight as one of the biggest fears in deploying AI in their organization. This fear is well-founded. Organizations implementing AI without proper governance frameworks risk not just operational failures, but legal liability, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational damage. Double literacy — investing in both human literacy (a holistic understanding of self and society) and algorithmic literacy — emerges as our most practical defense against AI-related risks. While waiting for coherent regulatory frameworks, organizations must build internal capabilities that enable safe AI deployment. Human literacy encompasses emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning — uniquely human capabilities that become more valuable, not less, in an AI-augmented world. Algorithmic literacy involves understanding how AI systems work, their limitations, and appropriate use cases. Together, these competencies create the foundation for responsible AI adoption. In healthcare, hybrid systems have begun to revolutionize patient care by enabling practitioners to spend more time in direct patient care while AI handles routine tasks, improving care outcomes and reducing burnout. Some leaders in the business world are also embracing the hybrid paradigm, with companies incorporating AI agents as coworkers gaining competitive advantages in productivity, innovation, and cost efficiency. Practical Implementation: The A-Frame Approach If you are a business reader and leader, you can start building AI safety capabilities in-house, today using the A-Frame methodology – 4 interconnected practices that create accountability without stifling innovation: Awareness requires mapping both AI capabilities and failure modes across technical, social, and legal dimensions. You cannot manage what you don't understand. This means conducting thorough risk assessments, stress-testing systems before deployment, and maintaining current knowledge of AI limitations. Appreciation involves recognizing that AI accountability operates across multiple levels simultaneously. Individual users, organizational policies, regulatory requirements, and global standards all influence outcomes. Effective AI governance requires coordinated action across all these levels, not isolated interventions. Acceptance means acknowledging that zero-failure AI systems are mythical. Instead of pursuing impossible perfection, organizations should design for resilience — systems that degrade gracefully under stress and recover quickly from failures. This includes maintaining human oversight capabilities, establishing clear escalation procedures, and planning for AI system downtime. Accountability demands clear ownership structures defined before deployment, not after failure. This means assigning specific individuals responsibility for AI outcomes, establishing measurable performance indicators, and creating transparent decision-making processes that can withstand regulatory scrutiny. The AI safety challenge isn't primarily technical — it's organizational and cultural. Companies that successfully navigate this transition will combine ambitious AI adoption with disciplined safety practices. They'll invest in double literacy programs, design hybrid intelligence systems, and implement the A-Frame methodology as standard practice. The alternative — rushing headlong into AI deployment without adequate safeguards — risks not just individual corporate failure, but systemic damage to AI's long-term potential. As the autonomous vehicle industry learned, premature promises of full automation can trigger public backlash that delays beneficial innovation by years or decades. Business leaders face a choice: they can wait for regulators to impose AI safety requirements from above, or they can proactively build safety capabilities that become competitive advantages. Organizations that choose the latter approach — investing in hybrid intelligence and double literacy today — will be best positioned to thrive in an AI-integrated future while avoiding the pitfalls that inevitably accompany revolutionary technology transitions. The future belongs not to companies that achieve perfect AI automation, but to those that master the art of human-AI collaboration. In a world of probabilistic machines, our most valuable asset remains deterministic human judgment — enhanced, not replaced, by artificial intelligence.
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Stablecoins Are Changing Global Finance
Stable Coin. Stablecoins Cryptocurrencies Stable Market Price Value Coin Currency. The U.S. Senate has taken a major step toward regulating stablecoins by advancing the GENIUS Act—a bill that could reshape the digital finance landscape. Still under discussion, the legislation proposes strict reserve and transparency rules for issuers and signals growing government interest in crypto oversight. Stablecoins are crypto tokens that are typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. They allow users to transact within blockchain ecosystems without the volatility of traditional cryptocurrencies. Today, two clear leaders dominate the market. Yet, while Washington begins drafting policy, stablecoins have already found product-market fit in places far beyond Capitol Hill. The global use of stablecoins is growing steadily, regardless of whether the market is in a bull or bear phase. In Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and among crypto-native startups, they've quietly emerged as a preferred tool for payments, payroll, and preserving value in unstable economies. So what does this bottom-up adoption mean for the future of global finance? Are stablecoins here to stay, or will they be replaced by Central Bank Digital Currencies? And if they are here to stay, how to ride this trend? According to DefiLlama, the current market capitalization of stablecoins is around $250 billion, which is still a small share of the global M2 money supply, approximately 1%. In other words, we're still early. To understand where the growth might come from, it's worth examining what stablecoins are used for—and why they've become so popular. Stablecoins market capitalization. The first is USDT (Tether), the largest stablecoin by market capitalization. Interestingly, Tether has also emerged as one of the most financially efficient companies in the world on a per-employee basis. According to a tweet published by Avichal Garg, co-founder of Electric Capital, the company generated an estimated $85.6 million in profit per employee in 2024: Profit per Employee (USD) vs. Company The second major player is USDC, issued by U.S.-regulated firm Circle. The company went public on June 5, under the ticker CRCL, with its stock surging over 200% on its first day of trading—pushing its market capitalization above $20 billion, according to Barron's. These two companies currently dominate the stablecoin space. Others worth mentioning include: • USDS (formerly DAI), which started as a decentralized stablecoin but has become only partially decentralized due to its large holdings of U.S. Treasuries and USDC. • USD1, a politically charged entrant tied to Donald Trump's network, which has generated some discomfort among Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.), the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, voiced strong objections during a joint hearing on digital assets, stating: 'I object to this joint hearing because of the corruption of the President of the United States and his ownership of crypto and his oversight of all of the agencies.' Stablecoins are enjoying instant product-market fit: everyone needs access to crypto dollars — a version of the U.S. dollar that can be easily converted back to fiat, yet offers several advantages over traditional USD. While much of the attention on stablecoins focuses on regulation and market cap, their real momentum comes from how they're being used: The most obvious example of stablecoin usage is international payments. Sending U.S. dollars across borders with the traditional banking system typically involves SWIFT. Banks charge between $5 and $50 per transaction, often around $20, regardless of the transfer amount. That means sending $1,000 could cost users up to 2–5% in fees. In addition, the SWIFT transfers can take several business days to settle. Compared to transferring the same amount via stablecoins, even in the worst case, fees might only be a few dollars, and the transaction typically settles within minutes. That's at least 10 times cheaper and potentially 100 times faster. There's also another major benefit: users avoid capital controls, currency conversion hurdles, and heavy compliance bottlenecks, particularly relevant when sending money from or to countries with restrictive financial systems. The second use case — using stablecoins as a means of payment — is less advanced, largely due to regulatory inertia. Governments generally want citizens to transact in their local currencies, and stablecoins challenge that sovereignty. The lack of clarity discourages businesses from accepting them, especially given the lingering memory of Operation Choke Point, when certain industries were unofficially cut off from banking services. Despite the current U.S. administration's relatively crypto-friendly stance, the stablecoin bill GENIUS Act has yet to pass through Congress. This uncertainty keeps most merchants and payment providers on the sidelines. Once clear legislation is enacted, trust in stablecoins like USDT and USDC will likely surge. As for CBDCs, a concept that is often met with skepticism in the cryptocurrency community, the need for a government-backed digital dollar seems increasingly unnecessary. According to U.S. Treasury International Capital data, Tether's treasury holdings alone rival those of sovereign investors like Germany or Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Circle's portfolio is comparable to that of Thailand or Sweden. With such significant exposure to U.S. debt and growing political opposition to CBDCs—including campaign promises from Donald Trump to block their development—stablecoins may have already secured their place as the preferred digital dollar infrastructure in the United States. The third major use case—decentralized finance —is where stablecoins are already thriving. They serve as the foundational currency for DeFi applications, enabling lending, borrowing, swapping, yield farming, and more—all without centralized intermediaries. The functionality mirrors traditional finance but with key advantages: it's global, permissionless, and often more efficient. According to Dune Analytics data in the DeFi Report 2024–2025 , approximately 151 million wallet addresses interacted with DeFi protocols in 2024. While this figure likely includes duplicates, it provides a useful upper bound for estimating user activity. By comparison, World Bank data from 2021 shows that 4.6 to 4.9 billion people used traditional banking services globally. This also underscores the early stage of adoption of DeFi. But, once frameworks are established, DeFi usage could accelerate rapidly. Following these three cases, it's fair to say that stablecoins are here to stay. And this may only be the beginning: as crypto infrastructure intersects with artificial intelligence, stablecoins could enable AI agents to transact autonomously, unlocking programmable, real-time finance. So, how can investors position themselves to benefit from this trend? There are many ways, some of them look obvious, like buying CRCL as it has become a public company, or investing in Coinbase stocks (COIN), a company which is steadily growing its own layer two DeFi ecosystem. Some are more complicated, like finding companies to invest in that adopt stablecoins in their operations — for payments, payroll, or international transfers — and which are likely to scale faster than their peers, thanks to lower costs and global reach. Check Stripe, PayPal, and Deel as examples. On the decentralized side, assuming a favorable regulatory framework materializes, in a next way of adoption, DeFi applications could rapidly pull users away from traditional banks. In that case, there is significant upside in owning tokens or equity in platforms like Uniswap, Aave, or even Hyperliquid — all of which are well-positioned to become foundational players in the next generation of financial infrastructure. Derivative DEX trading volumes. But don't forget the risks to watch. Transformation won't come without resistance. The banking lobby remains one of the most powerful political forces in the world, and it's unlikely to welcome a shift toward 'magic internet money' without a fight. Regulatory headwinds, political gridlock, and coordinated opposition from legacy institutions are all real risks investors should keep in mind. But we know that fortune, at least in markets driven by emerging technologies, often favors the brave.
Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
WNBA should investigate Brittney Griner video after probing false claims about Fever fans, governor says
In just the first week of the WNBA season, Caitlin Clark found herself in more wars of words. A day after she and the Indiana Fever slaughtered Angel Reese and the Chicago Sky, the WNBA began investigating reports of "hateful comments" toward Reese by Fever fans that were ultimately "not substantiated." When the WNBA announced the claims were not true, U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., called on the WNBA to issue an apology to Fever fans and Indiana residents. It is a sentiment Indiana Gov. Mike Braun agreed with during a recent interview with Fox News Digital. "I'm one that absolutely has zero tolerance for bigotry and bullying and all the stuff that comes along with that whole discussion. When comments are made that don't make sense … when it's out of line, you need to acknowledge it. So, I agree with Sen. Banks there, and I hope that there's not any of that there," Braun said. Although the WNBA investigated reports of verbal attacks against Reese, the WNBA has not investigated a viral video of Brittney Griner in which many people on social media believe she was calling Clark "trash" and a "f---ing white girl." The video of Griner emerged shortly after Griner fouled out against the Fever on a questionable foul during a game in which Clark and Griner, who play two separate positions, were hardly near each other. Others say Griner was actually calling the referee or the call that was made "trash," adding it was a "f---ing whack call." In any case, the video has been a hot topic online, and the WNBA has not acted. Braun said if the WNBA investigated what were determined to be false claims of hateful speech against Reese, it should look into Griner. "I don't think there's any place for it. I think Caitlin has kind of done things for the league itself where it ought to be embraced. I think, if anything, it's showcased the talent across that league. You ought to be grateful for it, not throwing around comments that might indicate otherwise," Braun said. "Yes, I think if there was some look into what Angel Reese did, I think it would be good to put that to rest as well. And I hope that exits the stage, because it's no good regardless of where it's coming from." Braun admitted he "didn't pay quite as much attention" to women's basketball before Clark got to his state, "but I have a lot recently." "She sells out the Gainbridge arena just like the Pacers do, and her team," Braun said. "And the more I watch the games, they're as competitive, in many cases more so, in terms of the scrap and the talent. We're lucky that Caitlin ended up in the basketball state. She has rekindled a lot of that spirit at both the college and high school levels. Caitlin has been a wonderful addition, and she's in the right state. "Maybe that was destiny." Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
