
New Study Links Diabetes in Pregnancy to Developmental Risks in Children
Maternal diabetes, a pregnancy complication that can affect up to a third of women globally, is linked with a higher risk of neurodevelopmental issues in children, a large new study found.
The study, which was published in the journal Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology on Monday, adds to a growing body of evidence that ties maternal diabetes to a range of health complications for both the mother and the child. Though the findings describe only a correlation, experts said the data underscored the need for screening and early treatment of diabetes, a condition that is becoming more common worldwide.
In the United States, an estimated 10 percent of women had diagnosed diabetes in 2021, and 9 percent of pregnant American women develop gestational diabetes every year.
'We've known for some time that there's some link between elevated glucose levels in pregnancy and future neurodevelopmental disorders,' said Dr. Elizabeth Halprin, who is chief of adult diabetes at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and was not involved in the study. The new findings speak 'to the need to control diabetes during pregnancy,' she added.
The analysis, which pooled data from 202 studies on more than 56 million pregnancies around the world, examined outcomes for children whose mothers had Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes while pregnant, or were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. These conditions are collectively referred to as 'maternal diabetes.'
Even when studies accounted for other factors like a woman's age or body mass index, children born to women who had diabetes during pregnancy were 28 percent more likely to have a neurodevelopmental issue than children whose mothers didn't have the disease. The risks of A.D.H.D. and intellectual disability were slightly higher compared with those of other issues, like autism.
The analysis found a greater likelihood of neurodevelopmental disorders in children of women who were diabetic before pregnancy, compared with those who had gestational diabetes.
Having gestational diabetes for a longer period of time or having gestational diabetes severe enough to warrant medication also increased the risk.
The consistency of the associations is surprising, given how large and diverse the data set was, said Fangkun Liu, an author of the paper and an associate professor of neurosurgery at Central South University in Changsha, China.
It's not clear what might be behind the potential link between high blood sugar levels and neurodevelopmental issues. The study's authors suggest that Type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune condition, may increase inflammation in children, correlating with increased risk of autism and ADHD. Maternal diabetes also affects how genes are expressed and could cause changes that affect brain function, they said.
Doctors have also known for years that high blood sugar increases the risk of neurological birth defects, including spina bifida and a condition called anencephaly, when the brain isn't fully developed. It therefore isn't surprising that high blood sugar might affect other types of neurological development, too, said Dr. Susan Spratt, a professor of endocrinology at the Duke University School of Medicine.
The study 'does not establish diabetes as a direct cause' of neurodevelopmental disorders, Dr. Liu said, because it was difficult to account for all confounding factors, particularly genetics. Some studies in the analysis looked at siblings and found no clear link between maternal diabetes and neurodevelopmental issues.
Both Dr. Halprin and the authors noted that the new study didn't include much data from low-income countries, such as those in South and Southeast Asia, where maternal diabetes is more prevalent.
The biggest unanswered question is whether getting blood sugar under control could cut these potential risks.
'As a researcher, a physician in this space, as well as a parent, I really want to now know more about the impact of glucose control treatment in pregnancy,' said Dr. Kartik Venkatesh, who is the director of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Program at Ohio State University and was not involved in the study. The authors called for more rigorous research into this question.
Several experts said the study points to the need for comprehensive diabetes screening among young women in their 20s and 30s, so that anyone who may get pregnant receives treatment before they conceive. An estimated 4 percent of U.S. women had undiagnosed diabetes in 2021.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that women with diabetes meet with an endocrinologist or a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine when planning to conceive. In addition to controlling their blood sugar before and during pregnancy, some patients may need to stop taking certain drugs, such as medications called sulfonylureas, which are known to cross the placenta and are typically not recommended during pregnancy. There is little research on the effects of drugs like Ozempic during pregnancy.
The A.D.A. recommends that pregnant patients with diabetes receive nutrition counseling that promotes a diet of whole grains, lean protein and fresh fruits and vegetables. Exercise can help improve glucose levels and reduce the need for insulin, which is the preferred medication for managing diabetes in pregnancy.
While the findings can seem concerning, Dr. Venkatesh said, 'the reality of diabetes care in pregnancy is we have treatments that work.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
CVS responds to Gov. Sanders' New York Times Op-Ed about PBMs
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — CVS Health is ramping up its campaign against a new Arkansas law that targets pharmacy benefit managers, publicly clashing with Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders just hours after she defended the legislation in a guest essay for The New York Times. Act 624, signed by Sanders in April, bars companies from running both a pharmacy and a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), a model used by CVS. PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for insurers, negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and reimburse pharmacies. In her guest essay on June 10, Sanders wrote that PBMs 'forcibly steer patients away from independent operators' and inflate drug prices. She also wrote that Act 624 lets PBMs keep operating in Arkansas, but, she said, 'they just can't continue to mistreat patients and box out other pharmacies.' Sanders claimed the three largest pharmacy benefit managers handle 80% of U.S. prescriptions and earn 70% of specialty drug revenue through their affiliated pharmacies. 'Now, CVS is threatening to close down every pharmacy it operates in our state — preferring to take its ball and go home rather than divest from its pharmacy benefit management business and actually serve the patients it claims to care about,' Sanders wrote. CVS sues Arkansas over new pharmacy law CVS issued a statement later that day disputing Sanders' characterization of the law, claiming that the new law is about 'choosing winners and losers and rewarding special interests.' 'Out-of-state competitors are disadvantaged,' a CVS spokesperson said. 'In-state competitors, including Walmart, would handsomely benefit from the closures of pharmacies owned by us and others. The losers are the people of Arkansas who will pay more.' CVS says the law could force it to close 23 pharmacies in Arkansas, affecting 340,000 patients, and block its specialty pharmacy from treating 10,000 high-risk patients with cancer, HIV and rare diseases. The company is also challenging Act 624 in federal court, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution. 'PBMs are the last line of defense between drugmakers that want to charge a lot of money, and the American businesses, unions, health plans, and government agencies that want to provide good benefits to people,' CVS said in its response on June 10. CVS argues the law is unconstitutional because it unfairly targets out-of-state businesses, treats similar companies differently, and conflicts with federal laws like ERISA and Medicare rules. The company also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. 'One state representative who co-sponsored this law owns 13 pharmacies by himself,' the company said, linking to state Rep. Brandon Achor's campaign website. Act 624, introduced as House Bill 1150, was backed by the Arkansas Pharmacists Association and Attorney General Tim Griffin, and passed easily. Act 624 is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2026. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
A New Study Reveals There's A Specific Diet Linked To A Significantly Lower Dementia Risk
A new study suggests that a specific diet could lower your dementia risk. Researchers analyzing data from nearly 93,000 American adults found that those who closely followed the MIND diet had a 9 percent lower risk of developing dementia. The MIND diet stands for Mediterranean–DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay. If you've been paying attention to health and wellness headlines over the past few years, you'll already know that your diet impacts everything from gut health to energy levels, but new research suggests it may even influence your dementia risk. That's the major takeaway from the study, which was presented at the American Society for Nutrition's annual meeting. The study pinpoints a specific eating plan—the MIND diet—as having a meaningful impact on dementia risk. Of course, following a specific diet won't automatically wipe away any risk of developing dementia, but neurologists say these new findings are worth paying attention to. Here's why that is, and what they make of the results. Meet the experts: Clifford Segil, DO, is a neurologist at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, CA; Amit Sachdev, MD, MS, is the medical director in the Department of Neurology at Michigan State University For the study, researchers analyzed data from nearly 93,000 American adults who participated in the Multiethnic Cohort Study, a long-term study that started in the '90s. At the start of the study, the participants were between 45 and 75 years old. During the study period, more than 21,000 developed Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. The researchers discovered that study participants who closely followed the MIND diet had a 9 percent lower risk of developing dementia. There was a difference in race, too: People who were African American, Latino, or White had a 13 percent lower risk. But the researchers also discovered that people who followed the MIND diet more closely over 10 years, even if they weren't super consistent at the start of the study, had a 25 percent lower risk of dementia compared to those who stopped adhering as much to the eating plan over time. The MIND diet stands for Mediterranean–DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay. It's an iteration of the Mediterranean diet that is focused on eating plant-based foods with the goal of preventing dementia, according to the National Institute on Aging (NIA). The MIND diet encourages people to focus on eating green leafy vegetables, berries, whole grains, beans, and nuts. It also encourages followers to have olive oil and one or more weekly servings of fish, while limiting red meat, sweets, cheese, butter and margarine, and fast and fried food, per the NIA. The study didn't find that following a MIND diet caused a drop in dementia risk—it just found a link between people who followed the diet and lower risk. But neurologists say there could be something behind this link. 'The MIND diet is generally a balanced diet that manages portion control and offers a diversity of food choices,' says Amit Sachdev, MD, MS, medical director in the Department of Neurology at Michigan State University. 'This approach offers benefits for improving cardiovascular and cerebrovascular health. By improving blood flow to the brain, overall brain health can be improved.' Clifford Segil, DO, a neurologist at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, CA, agrees. 'Eating healthy prevents cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease which, in turn, prevents heart attacks and strokes,' he says. That question is still under investigation, Dr. Segil says. 'Many diets have been proposed to decrease your risk of getting Alzheimer's dementia as we age and it still remains challenging to see any diet is 'neuro-protective' against getting Alzheimer's dementia,' he adds. Still, Dr. Segil suggests that it may be best to avoid diets that are high in fats and sugars, and limit simple carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. (All of these food factors have been linked to bodily inflammation, which is associated with dementia risk.) 'Eating a balanced diet of proteins, vegetables, and vitamins, and drinking water are healthy choices which can make you more healthy—and maybe your brain more healthy,' he says. You Might Also Like Jennifer Garner Swears By This Retinol Eye Cream These New Kicks Will Help You Smash Your Cross-Training Goals


The Intercept
6 hours ago
- The Intercept
OpenAI's Pitch to Trump: Rank the World on U.S. Tech Interests
OpenAI has always said it's a different kind of Big Tech titan, founded not just to rack up a stratospheric valuation of $400 billion (and counting), but also to 'ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.' The meteoric machine-learning firm announced itself to the world in a December 2015 press release that lays out a vision of technology to benefit all people as people, not citizens. There are neither good guys nor adversaries. 'Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole,' the announcement stated with confidence. 'Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact.' Early rhetoric from the company and its CEO, Sam Altman, described advanced artificial intelligence as a harbinger of a globalist utopia, a technology that wouldn't be walled off by national or corporate boundaries but enjoyed together by the species that birthed it. In an early interview with Altman and fellow OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk, Altman described a vision of artificial intelligence 'freely owned by the world' in common. When Vanity Fair asked in a 2015 interview why the company hadn't set out as a for-profit venture, Altman replied: 'I think that the misaligned incentives there would be suboptimal to the world as a whole.' Times have changed. And OpenAI wants the White House to think it has too. In a March 13 white paper submitted directly to the Trump administration, OpenAI's global affairs chief Chris Lehane pitched a near future of AI built for the explicit purpose of maintaining American hegemony and thwarting the interests of its geopolitical competitors — specifically China. The policy paper's mentions of freedom abound, but the proposal's true byword is national security. OpenAI never attempts to reconcile its full-throated support of American security with its claims to work for the whole planet, not a single country. After opening with a quotation from Trump's own executive order on AI, the action plan proposes that the government create a direct line for the AI industry to reach the entire national security community, work with OpenAI 'to develop custom models for national security,' and increase intelligence sharing between industry and spy agencies 'to mitigate national security risks,' namely from China. In the place of techno-globalism, OpenAI outlines a Cold Warrior exhortation to divide the world into camps. OpenAI will ally with those 'countries who prefer to build AI on democratic rails,' and get them to commit to 'deploy AI in line with democratic principles set out by the US government.' The rhetoric seems pulled directly from the keyboard of an 'America First' foreign policy hawk like Marco Rubio or Rep. Mike Gallagher, not a company whose website still endorses the goal of lifting up the whole world. The word 'humanity,' in fact, never appears in the action plan. Rather, the plan asks Trump, to whom Altman donated $1 million for his inauguration ceremony, to 'ensure that American-led AI prevails over CCP-led AI' — the Chinese Communist Party — 'securing both American leadership on AI and a brighter future for all Americans.' It's an inherently nationalist pitch: The concepts of 'democratic values' and 'democratic infrastructure' are both left largely undefined beyond their American-ness. What is democratic AI? American AI. What is American AI? The AI of freedom. And regulation of any kind, of course, 'may hinder our economic competitiveness and undermine our national security,' Lehane writes, suggesting a total merging of corporate and national interests. In an emailed statement, OpenAI spokesperson Liz Bourgeois declined to explain the company's nationalist pivot but defended its national security work. 'We believe working closely with the U.S. government is critical to advancing our mission of ensuring AGI benefits all of humanity,' Bourgeois wrote. 'The U.S. is uniquely positioned to help shape global norms around safe, secure, and broadly beneficial AI development—rooted in democratic values and international collaboration.' The Intercept is currently suing OpenAI in federal court over the company's use of copyrighted articles to train its chatbot ChatGPT. OpenAI's newfound patriotism is loud. But is it real? In his 2015 interview with Musk, Altman spoke of artificial intelligence as a technology so special and so powerful that it ought to transcend national considerations. Pressed on OpenAI's goal to share artificial intelligence technology globally rather than keeping it under domestic control, Altman provided an answer far more ambivalent than the company's current day mega-patriotism: 'If only one person gets to have it, how do you decide if that should be Google or the U.S. government or the Chinese government or ISIS or who?' He also said, in the early days of OpenAI, that there may be limits to what his company might do for his country. 'I unabashedly love this country, which is the greatest country in the world,' Altman told the New Yorker in 2016. 'But some things we will never do with the Department of Defense.' In the profile, he expressed ambivalence about overtures to OpenAI from then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, who envisioned using the company's tools for targeting purposes. At the time, this would have run afoul of the company's own ethical guidelines, which for years stated explicitly that customers could not use its services for 'military and warfare' purposes, writing off any Pentagon contracting entirely. In January 2024, The Intercept reported that OpenAI had deleted this military contracting ban from its policies without explanation or announcement. Asked about how the policy reversal might affect business with other countries in an interview with Bloomberg, OpenAI executive Anna Makanju said the company is 'focused on United States national security agencies.' But insiders who spoke with The Intercept on conditions of anonymity suggested that the company's turn to jingoism may come more from opportunism than patriotism. Though Altman has long been on the record as endorsing corporate support of the United States, under an administration where the personal favor of the president means far more than the will of lawmakers, parroting muscular foreign policy rhetoric is good for business. One OpenAI source who spoke with The Intercept recalled concerned discussions about the possibility that the U.S. government would nationalize the company. They said that at times, this was discussed with the company's head of national security partnerships, Katrina Mulligan. Mulligan joined the company in February 2024 after a career in the U.S. intelligence and military establishment, including leading the media and public policy response to Edward Snowden's leaks while on the Obama National Security Council staff, working for the director of national intelligence, serving as a senior civilian overseeing Special Operations forces in the Pentagon, and working as chief of staff to the secretary of the Army. This source speculated that fostering closeness with the government was one method of fending off the potential risk of nationalization. As an independent research organization with ostensibly noble, global goals, OpenAI may have been less equipped to beat back regulatory intervention, a second former OpenAI employee suggested. What we see now, they said, is the company 'transitioning from presenting themselves as a nonprofit with very altruistic, pro-humanity aims, to presenting themselves as an economic and military powerhouse that the government needs to support, shelter, and cut red tape on behalf of.' The second source said they believed the national security rhetoric was indicative of OpenAI 'sucking up to the administration,' not a genuinely held commitment by executives. 'In terms of how decisions were actually made, what seemed to be the deciding factor was basically how can OpenAI win the race rather than anything to do with either humanity or national security,' they added. 'In today's political environment, it's a winning move with the administration to talk about America winning and national security and stuff like that. But you should not confuse that for the actual thing that's driving decision-making internally.' The person said that talk of preventing Chinese dominance over artificial intelligence likely reflects business, not political, anxieties. 'I think that's not their goal,' they said. 'I think their goal is to maintain their own control over the most powerful stuff.' 'I also talked to some people who work at OpenAI who weren't from the U.S. who were feeling like … 'What's going to happen to my country?'' But even if its motivations are cynical, company sources told The Intercept that national security considerations still pervaded OpenAI. The first source recalled a member of OpenAI's corporate security team regularly engaging with the U.S. intelligence community to safeguard the company's ultra-valuable machine-learning models. The second recalled concern about the extent of the government's relationship — and potential control over — OpenAI's technology. A common fear among AI safety researchers is a future scenario in which artificial intelligence models begin autonomously designing newer versions, ad infinitum, leading human engineers to lose control. 'One reason why the military AI angle could be bad for safety is that you end up getting the same sort of thing with AIs designing successors designing successors, except that it's happening in a military black project instead of in a somewhat more transparent corporation,' the second source said. 'Occasionally there'd be talk of, like, eventually the government will wake up, and there'll be a nuclear power plant next to a data center next to a bunker, and we'll all be moved into the bunker so that we can, like, beat China by managing an intelligence explosion,' they added. At a company that recruits top engineering talent internationally, the prospect of American dominance of a technology they believe could be cataclysmic was at times disquieting. 'I remember I also talked to some people who work at OpenAI who weren't from the U.S. who were feeling kind of sad about that and being like, 'What's going to happen to my country after the U.S. gets all the super intelligences?'' Sincerity aside, OpenAI has spent the past year training its corporate algorithm on flag-waving, defense lobbying, and a strident anticommunism that smacks more of the John Birch Society than the Whole Earth Catalog. In his white paper, Lehane, a former press secretary for Vice President Al Gore and special counsel to President Bill Clinton, advocates not for a globalist techno-utopia in which artificial intelligence jointly benefits the world, but a benevolent jingoism in which freedom and prosperity is underwritten by the guarantee of American dominance. While the document notes fleetingly, in its very last line, the idea of 'work toward AI that benefits everyone,' the pitch is not one of true global benefit, but of American prosperity that trickles down to its allies. The company proposes strict rules walling off parts of the world, namely China, from AI's benefits, on the grounds that they are simply too dangerous to be trusted. OpenAI explicitly advocates for conceiving of the AI market not as an international one, but 'the entire world less the PRC' — the People's Republic of China — 'and its few allies,' a line that quietly excludes over 1 billion people from the humanity the company says it wishes to benefit and millions who live under U.S.-allied authoritarian rule. In pursuit of 'democratic values,' OpenAI proposes dividing the entire planet into three tiers. At the top: 'Countries that commit to democratic AI principles by deploying AI systems in ways that promote more freedoms for their citizens could be considered Tier I countries.' Given the earlier mention of building 'AI in line with democratic principles set out by the US government,' this group's membership is clear: the United States, and its friends. In pursuit of 'democratic values,' OpenAI proposes dividing the entire planet into three tiers. Beneath them are Tier 2 countries, a geopolitical purgatory defined only as those that have failed to sufficiently enforce American export control policies and protect American intellectual property from Tier 3: Communist China. 'CCP-led China, along with a small cohort of countries aligned with the CCP, would represent its own category that is prohibited from accessing democratic AI systems,' the paper explains. To keep these barriers intact — while allowing for the chance that Tier 2 countries might someday graduate to the top — OpenAI suggests coordinating 'global bans on CCP-aligned AI' and 'prohibiting relationships' between other countries and China's military or intelligence services. One of the former OpenAI employees said concern about China at times circulated throughout the company. 'Definitely concerns about espionage came up,' this source said, 'including 'Are particular people who work at the company spies or agents?'' At one point, they said, a colleague worried about a specific co-worker they'd learned was the child of a Chinese government official. The sourced recalled 'some people being very upset about the implication' that the company had been infiltrated by foreigners, while others wanted an actual answer: ''Is anyone who works at the company a spy or foreign agent?'' The company's public adoration of Western democracy is not without wrinkles. In early May, OpenAI announced an initiative to build data centers and customized ChatGPT bots with foreign governments, as part of its $500 billion 'Project Stargate' AI infrastructure construction blitz. 'This is a moment when we need to act to support countries around the world that would prefer to build on democratic AI rails, and provide a clear alternative to authoritarian versions of AI that would deploy it to consolidate power,' the announcement read. Unmentioned in that celebration of AI democracy is the fact that Project Stargate's financial backers include the government of Abu Dhabi, an absolute monarchy. On May 23, Altman tweeted that it was 'great to work with the UAE' on Stargate, describing co-investor and Emirati national security adviser Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan as a 'great supporter of openai, a true believer in AGI, and a dear personal friend.' In 2019, Reuters revealed how a team of mercenary hackers working for Emirati intelligence under Tahnoun had illegally broken into the devices of targets around the world, including American citizens. Asked how a close partnership with an authoritarian Emirati autocracy fit into its broader mission of spreading democratic values, OpenAI pointed to a recent op-ed in The Hill in which Lehane discusses the partnership. 'We're working closely with American officials to ensure our international partnerships meet the highest standards of security and compliance,' Lehane writes, adding, 'Authoritarian regimes would be excluded.' OpenAI's new direction has been reflected in its hiring. Since hiring Mulligan, the company has continued to expand its D.C. operation. Mulligan works on national security policy with a team of former Department of Defense, NSA, CIA, and Special Operations personnel. Gabrielle Tarini joined the company after almost two years at the Defense Department, where she worked on 'Indo-Pacific security affairs' and 'China policy,' according to LinkedIn. Sasha Baker, who runs national security policy, joined after years at the National Security Council and Pentagon. OpenAI's policy team includes former DoD, NSA, CIA, and Special Operations personnel. The list goes on: Other policy team hires at OpenAI include veterans of the NSA, a Pentagon former special operations and South China Sea expert, and a graduate of the CIA's Sherman Kent School for Intelligence Analysis. OpenAI's military and intelligence revolving door continues to turn: At the end of April, the company recruited Alexis Bonnell, the former chief information officer of the Air Force Research Laboratory. Recent job openings have included a 'Relationship Manager' focusing on 'strategic relationships with U.S. government customers.' Mulligan, the head of national security policy and partnerships, is both deeply connected to the defense and intelligence apparatus, and adept at the kind of ethically ambivalent thinking common to the tech sector. 'Not everything that has happened at Guantanamo Bay is to be praised, that's for sure, but [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] admitting to his crimes, even all these years later, is a big moment for many (including me),' she posted last year. In a March podcast appearance, Mulligan noted she worked on 'Gitmo rendition, detention, and interrogation' during her time in government. Mulligan's public rhetoric matches the ideological drift of a company that today seems more concerned with 'competition' and 'adversaries' than kumbaya globalism. On LinkedIn, she seems to embody the contradiction between a global mission and full-throated alignment with American policy values. 'I'm excited to be joining OpenAI to help them ensure that AI is safe and beneficial to all of humanity,' she wrote upon her hiring from the Pentagon. Since then, she has regularly represented OpenAI's interests and American interests as one and the same, sharing national security truisms such as 'In a competition with China, the pace of AI adoption matters,' or 'The United States' continued lead on AI is essential to our national security and economic competitiveness,' or 'Congress needs to make some decisive investments to ensure the U.S. national security community has the resources to harness the advantage the U.S. has on this technology.' This is to some extent conventional wisdom of the country's past 100 years: A strong, powerful America is good for the whole world. But OpenAI has shifted from an organization that believed its tech would lift up the whole world, unbounded by national borders, to one that talks like Lockheed Martin. Part of OpenAI's national security realignment has come in the form of occasional 'disruption' reports detailing how the company detected and neutralized 'malicious use' of its tools by foreign governments, coincidentally almost all of them considered adversaries of the United States. As the provider of services like ChatGPT, OpenAI has near-total visibility into how the tools are used or misused by individuals, what the company describes in one report as its 'unique vantage point.' The reports detail not only how these governments attempted to use ChatGPT, but also the steps OpenAI took to thwart them, described by the company as an 'effort to support broader efforts by U.S. and allied governments.' Each report has focused almost entirely on malign AI uses by 'state affiliated' actors from Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia. A May 2024 report outed an Israeli propaganda effort using ChatGPT but stopped short of connecting it to that country's government. Earlier this month, representatives of the intelligence agency and the contractors who serve them gathered at the America's Center Convention Complex in St. Louis for the GEOINT Symposium, dedicated to geospatial intelligence, the form of tradecraft analyzing satellite and other imagery of the planet to achieve military and intelligence objectives. On May 20, Mulligan took to the stage to demonstrate how OpenAI's services could help U.S. spy agencies and the Pentagon better exploit the Earth's surface. Though the government's practice of GEOINT frequently ends in the act of killing, Mulligan used a gentler example, demonstrating the ability of ChatGPT to pinpoint the location where a photograph of a rabbit was taken. It was nothing if not a sales pitch, one predicated on the fear that some other country might leap at the opportunity before the United States. 'Government often feels like using AI is too risky and that it's better and safer to keep doing things the way that we've always done them, and I think this is the most dangerous mix of all,' Mulligan told her audience. 'If we keep doing things the way that we always have, and our adversaries adapt to this technology before we do, they will have all of the advantages that I show you today, and we will not be safer.'