safety

Organizations publicly opposing Proposition 44 include the California Medical Assn., the California Hospital Assn., which represents hospitals and health systems, the Assn. of California Healthcare Districts, which represents the state’s 76 public healthcare districts, the California Teachers Assn., the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliate, the state Democratic Party, the state Chamber of Commerce and Reform California, a conservative advocacy group.

Opponents say the proposition’s vague wording could result in vital services being excluded from the list of program expenses permitted in the 90% of revenues, prompting clinics to cut programs to avoid financial penalties. A study commissioned by the California Primary Care Assn. found that clinics could face up to $1.7 billion in collective penalties in the first year of the measure’s implementation alone, an additional expense that could leave up to 88% of clinics operating in the red.

Opponents also say the measure adds an expensive layer of bureaucracy to the state’s budget and grants elected officials — in this case, the attorney general — authority to determine which services clinics can offer.

A group of big tech CEOs signed off on U.S. President Donald Trump’s “White House Accord on Super Intelligence” on Tuesday.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump revealed his Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibility, which was signed by Google’s (

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

OpenAI has cancelled the release of its latest AI model over safety concerns, according to media reports.

The move to scrap the release of GPT-6.1 Astra, reported by the Wall Street Journal and CNN on Monday, comes amid heightened concerns about AI’s potential to do catastrophic harm following a slew of incidents involving AI agents going rogue.

More to follow…

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration voiced support for the safety of long-established vaccines at a hearing Thursday, even as senators questioned her about the White House’s efforts to upend childhood immunizations.

Dr. Heidi Overton, a physician serving as a White House adviser, has worked on a series of Trump health initiatives, including an executive order last month that called for splitting up and spacing out decades-old childhood vaccinations. Overton stood beside Trump in the Oval Office when he falsely remarked that the combined measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine is “quite lethal.”

Senate Health Committee Chairman Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician from Louisiana, pushed Overton to reject that statement and affirm the safety of FDA-approved vaccines.

“Right now every vaccine that is on the market has been determined to be safe and effective,” including the MMR vaccine, Overton said.

Cassidy repeatedly has tried to extract commitments from Trump health nominees to uphold vaccine standards, including from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., only to see the Republican administration push forward with efforts undermining their use.

“Kennedy gave me guarantees, and he did not keep them,” said Cassidy, a Republican. “If the president asks you to do something that goes against those guarantees you give us today, what will you do?”

Overton said she would “follow the statutory requirements” for FDA commissioners and give Trump her best advice.

If confirmed by the Senate, Overton would inherit a raft of other controversial projects at the agency, including a safety review of the nation’s principal abortion drug and new rules that make it easier to sell flavored electronic cigarettes. Both issues were a focus for Republicans and Democrats on the panel, who will vote on Overton’s nomination.

Overton sidesteps past statements on abortion pill

The FDA approved the abortion pill mifepristone in 2000 and repeatedly has affirmed its safety while broadening access, including allowing it to be sent through the mail. But Kennedy ordered an FDA review of the drug’s safety last year, following calls from antiabortion groups and lawmakers favoring abortion restrictions.

While working at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, Overton called the FDA decision to allow mail delivery of mifepristone “dangerous for women,” referring to the practice as “chemical abortion on demand.”

In response to questions from Washington Sen. Patty Murray, Overton sidestepped her personal views on the drug, stating that it “has met the safety and efficacy determinations of the FDA.” Overton said she didn’t want to “prejudge” the FDA’s safety review of the pill.

“The FDA has said this is safe,” responded Murray, a Democrat. “We need someone in FDA to make sure this is done by science.”

Overton’s abortion views could complicate her efforts to win over two moderate Republicans on the panel: Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Both have bucked their party on the issue, supporting federal access to abortion. Collins is locked in a tight reelection race in which abortion access is a central issue.

But Collins focused her questions Thursday on a different issue: recent FDA decisions allowing new flavored e-cigarettes onto the market. Under previous administrations, including Trump’s first term, the agency had restricted sweet flavors that appeal to kids.

Overton pointed out that approval of the fruit-flavored products had the backing of FDA scientists, who determined the products met the standard of “appropriate for the protection of public health,” by helping adult smokers quit cigarettes.

“They believed that standard was met because so many adult smokers are using flavors preferentially,” Overton said.

To become commissioner, Overton will need a majority of votes from the 21-member health committee, followed by a positive vote from the full Senate.

Under the current administration, leading the agency has involved balancing Trump’s demands for slashing regulations — such as those for vaping products — alongside Kennedy’s interests in scrutinizing vaccines, drugs and food ingredients.

The previous FDA head faced numerous challenges before quitting

Those challenges dogged the tenure of the previous FDA head, Dr. Marty Makary, who resigned in May. Makary’s time at the agency was defined by scientific disputes, leadership changes and a string of media stories detailing low morale and internal dysfunction among staffers. The FDA has lost about 20% of its employees to layoffs, buyouts, retirements or resignations since Trump took office.

Overton studied under Makary at Johns Hopkins University, where she received a doctoral degree in clinical research after earning her medical degree at the University of New Mexico.

Like Makary, Overton has no experience running a large bureaucracy, a critical skill for steering the FDA’s 16,000 staffers spread across numerous U.S. and international locations.

In financial disclosure forms, Overton reported no investments in healthcare or food companies. That’s a stark contrast to Makary and other recent FDA nominees who have had to divest investments or cut other financial ties with companies regulated by the FDA.

Overton reported $50,000 to $100,000 in student loans.

Perrone writes for the Associated Press.

PM Anthony Albanese asks Apple CEO Tim Cook to back Canberra’s online safety laws to ‘keep Australians safe’.

The Australian government is seeking support from global tech giants as it works to strengthen the country’s online safety laws and artificial intelligence (AI) regulations.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who met Apple CEO Tim Cook at the tech company’s headquarters in Cupertino, California, on Saturday, said that “Australia can’t do it alone” when it came to protecting children from the dangers of the internet.

“We spoke about what we’re doing to protect children from online harm and the work ahead,” Albanese wrote on social media.

“We’re putting stronger rules in place to keep Australians safe online,” he said. “And now, big tech companies like Apple are stepping up too.”

Albanese, who is also in the United States for the United Nations General Assembly, used his trip to call for stronger AI regulation after dire safety warnings from industry leaders.

Australia will introduce new standards for AI by the end of the year, he said.

In a video posted to his X account, Albanese said his Labor government is “making sure technology works for Australians”, and not the other way around.

In a post on X, Cook also said he shared with Albanese new “strong and intuitive controls to help keep kids safe online”.

New Australian legislation unveiled this month would place a “duty of care” requirement on the firms behind popular platforms, such as Facebook, TikTok and Instagram, and allow users to turn off their algorithms.

The draft laws will be introduced to parliament later this year after consultation with social media companies, industry bodies and civil society groups.

The opposition Liberal-National Coalition opposes the bill “in its current form”, according to a statement published on September 10, saying that it “contains inadequate safeguards for free speech and journalism, and leaves too much power in the hands of the Communications Minister”.

Australia implemented legislation barring children under 16 from social media platforms last year as part of a world-first crackdown designed to protect children from online bullying and “predatory algorithms”.

However, data last month found that Australians under 16 continued using social media apps such as Instagram and TikTok despite the ban.

SACRAMENTO — To hear President Trump tell it, the 60% or more of Americans who worried that unchecked artificial intelligence poses a risk to humanity are just a bunch of suckers buying the latest election-rigging conspiracy peddled by his foes.

“The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened?” Trump posted recently, apparently unaware that heat-related deaths continue to rise.

By the end of the week, his circle of sycophants had adopted that language, along with the strange take that Trump alone would be able to control the rise of superintelligence should it occur. David Sacks, often billed as Trump’s AI whisperer, echoed the hoax line at a Politico event, adding that there was an “orchestrated media campaign” meant to “alarm the public.”

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance called the pleas for regulation from inside the industry, including from CEOs such as Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, a “Trojan horse.” He argued that “Americans shouldn’t be scared of anything,” seemingly backing Trump’s absurd declaration that “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!.”

As someone who has covered this issue, let me just say the concern is not a hoax, not a marketing ploy meant to juice the value of companies about to have an IPO, and not a vast and sprawling plot by Trump’s adversaries.

But it is a complicated, fraught problem in a pivotal moment. The president’s confusion and inaction pose an immediate risk of slamming shut our small window of opportunity to make meaningful decisions about a technology that will almost certainly change the course of history and humanity.

So why exactly is Trump demanding this unfettered charge at oblivion, and what are the options for putting guardrails up despite him?

Trump’s reasoning

The pacifying but slightly terrified response of Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark to Trump hints at just how alarmed those deepest in AI development seemingly feel about both the president’s attitude and the unregulated future he demands.

“We’re grateful for the president’s attention,” Clark said on Fox News. “What we’re saying here is we need to get a sensible, commonsense safety framework … and we don’t roll the dice on some kind of accident.”

Or, as Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put it, “If the only guardrail AI needs is a ‘strong and smart president,’ we’re doomed.”

Like all things Trump, his position involves money. AI is currently a driving force behind the American economy, and if we just cover every inch of open space with data centers, it could keep an otherwise slumpish outlook bright.

OpenAI and Anthropic are also planning IPOs in the not-distant future.

Because these companies are valued at astonishing, 12-zero amounts and because certain stock listing rules will now require that these companies quickly be included in index funds favored by many pensions and retirement accounts, anything that crashes their value — such as investors’ jitters from regulation — could jam up the stock market.

That could affect the lives (and votes) of average Americans.

So despite the long-term risks, the short-term political benefits of the AI gravy train are substantial for Trump.

Then there is the place where Trump actually has a fair point: China. Current AI reflects the values of its creators. It would be disastrous for the free world if superintelligence were trained to favor authoritarianism.

The logic here is if we don’t build “good,” Western-values AI first, we will be at the mercy of “bad” AI, so the possibility of harming great numbers of people is a reasonable, maybe even necessary, risk.

Picking the best path

But is it? Is there a way to instead pursue both geopolitical dominance and safety?

This is where things get messy, and many folks — oligarchs in particular — become invested in keeping the general voter confused.

There is no consensus on a best course of action because we are in uncharted territory and there is actually no way to reliably predict what happens next.

Picking the best path forward, then, starts with picking a camp, a tribe, an outlook. In the broadest sense, there are three possibilities: We attempt to stuff the cat back in the bag; we all try to play nice, as companies and countries, and create rules on the fly; or we just accelerate at full speed, let it rip and what happens happens.

There are obvious problems with each of those.

As an excellent paper by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. explains, which of those camps a person chooses depends largely on just how imminent the danger feels, how feasible it seems to control development of AI and how realistic it is to bank on cooperation — or whether we believe we should and could aim to just continually win a technology war against humans or machines.

These camps, therefore, have little to do with traditional politics. Voters are feeling this issue on a visceral level, one that only a few years ago would have been deemed paranoid and fantastical, and it’s making for strange bedfellows.

Speaking at an conference this week, avowed lefty Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a pause on AI development because he’s in the camp that believes it’s currently too dangerous to go forward without a plan.

At the same conference, ultraconservative Trump loyalist Stephen K. Bannon made a similar point. He also urged Americans not to trust “anything” said by AI oligarchs, and to reject the idea championed by Trump that slowing down is dangerous or un-American.

“If you’re not accelerationist, you are supporting China,” Bannon said. “If you’re not accelerationist, you want America to lose. If you’re not an accelerationist, you’re bad, dumb and evil. Well, the last week has shown we’re none of that, and now we need the time to make the right decision.”

The issue is almost certainly going to be huge and problematic in the midterms — potentially for both parties.

For Republicans, navigating it means tiptoeing between Trump’s egomaniacal, short-term approach and voters who are increasingly intolerant of it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who regularly refuses to cross Trump, has been clear he doesn’t want Congress taking up the issue — despite calls from MAGA stalwarts such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to do so.

“If you’re about to destroy the world, how about, don’t,” Cruz quipped during a hearing on Capitol Hill this week during which he opposed waiving some antitrust rules, as AI companies have suggested — a move that could decrease their accountability if something goes awry.

For Democrats, coming out hard for safety should be an easy decision, seemingly popular with voters. But for a party that had made trademarks of infighting, flailing and uncertainty, it remains to be seen if they can muster the unity to capitalize on this silver-platter strife.

For both parties, it also means finding the courage and will to fight the enormous sums of money AI companies are funneling into elections to ensure any regulations are ones they approve. Politico reported that some Democratic strategists are warning to go soft on the issue to avoid angering those election buyers, because it turns out that even companies clamoring for rules only want the ones they choose.

Ultimately, though, it’s Bannon who cut to the chase with the most important point: Trump holds all the power here.

Congress can’t fix this. Regulation won’t be a single bill but years of work, in a moment when maybe we don’t have years. And more important, the national security aspect has to be handled by the president.

Without the U.S. president leading on a national and global solution, nothing meaningful gets done.

Trump’s position isn’t fostering innovation or safety. He’s simply sending a message of indifference, that he doesn’t really care what happens next — to oligarchs, China or American voters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Unrestrained: Inside L.A. County’s system for issuing and enforcing restraining orders
The California angle: Barabak: As Newsom winds down in California, things heat up in Nevada
The L.A. Times Special: AI crisis heightens the stakes of Xi’s visit to Washington

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday ordered the formation of a panel to come up with safety regulations for the state’s artificial intelligence companies, including the development of a possible “kill switch” for AI programs that go rogue.

Newsom issued an executive order to convene “a group of world-leading experts” to provide a “guide” for the state to bolster its laws around AI security, according to statement from the governor’s office.

The panel could put consider proposals for independent third parties to write safety plans or for companies to develop an emergency shutoff.

Newsom, who is considering a 2028 run for president, two years ago vetoed a state bill that would have mandated a kill switch.

Some Democratic and Republican leaders around the country are scrambling to come up with safety proposals after employees at AI companies recently warned that the technology could create catastrophe, including ending humanity.

A researcher for AI company Anthropic said he left the company over concerns that AI companies, including OpenAI, are “gambling with our lives” as they race ahead to improve AI that could surpass human intelligence.

The researcher, Jacob Coxon, said in a social media post: “People building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

State Sen. Chris Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), who chairs the state committee overseeing technology issues, told the Times he’ll hold hearings on artificial intelligence this fall. Those meetings were planned before the recent warnings about AI’s dangers, but will be informed by the events of the last few weeks, he said.

He said the state’s rules around AI don’t go far enough.

“We regulate your barber or your sandwich shop more than we regulate [a company] telling us that they may be ending humanity,” he said.

Any new laws could have a disproportionate effect on the global tech industry because many top AI companies are based in California.

A proposed law in 2024 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) would have required tech firms to be able to turn off the AI models they directly control if things go awry.

Newsom, in his veto message at the time, cited concerns about stifling innovation. He also expressed concern that smaller AI models, which would have been exempt from the law, could also be dangerous.

The virtual safety car (VSC) definitely throws jeopardy into races, but it does not do virtually what the safety car does. Would it not be more balanced to have a minimum of at least one full lap? Yes, this would dampen the jeopardy effect but what happened to Lando Norris feels like a chance card in Monopoly. – Kyle

Lando Norris’ bad luck with the virtual safety car at the Spanish Grand Prix has certainly focused attention on the ways this can disrupt races.

The VSC has always had issues – it freezes a race rather than resets it, which can be a bit boring compared to an actual safety car – but it has the benefit of minimising disruption when a track hazard can be cleared relatively quickly.

It has long been an opportunity for someone to benefit over a rival, because making a pit stop under a VSC takes significantly less time than under racing conditions.

But usually this has been in cases where one team has changed or deployed its strategy with the express intention of waiting for a safety car or VSC (such as Norris himself in his maiden victory in Miami in 2024), and benefiting over a rival who has run a more conventional strategy.

That sort of thing is considered fair game. What happened to Norris – a driver lost a race win because his specific track positioning at the time of a VSC meant he alone was unable to pit under it – is, to the best anyone could remember on Sunday, unique.

The media are not privy to conversations in drivers’ briefings, and Norris in particular gets a bit sniffy when information from those meetings leaks out because they are meant to be a safe space where the drivers and FIA can share opinions without it becoming a controversy.

But it emerged after the race that this issue, as Norris put it, “has been spoken about many, many times”.

Whether Norris’ misfortune leads to a change, such as ensuring that a VSC is deployed for at least one whole lap, remains to be seen.

There is no easy answer, because within F1 it’s recognised that safety cars are part of the competitive jigsaw, and can be used to a team’s advantage. And the latest rules have been arrived at after various previous iterations that worked in different ways, such as shutting the pit lane for specific periods.

McLaren team principal Andrea Stella said: “Offering a personal opinion, I’m puzzled myself as to what’s right.

“Is it correct to give enough duration such that everyone will have been subject to the same track conditions? So, for instance, the virtual safety car lasts at least one full lap.

“Or you just keep it in the hands of the Gods, and sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not. I’m not sure.”

There is process for these sorts of discussions – they go to a sporting advisory committee for analysis, before being reviewed by the F1 Commission of teams, commercial rights holder F1 and governing body the FIA.

That won’t happen quickly – unless it is decided by F1 and the FIA that it is a desirable outcome to change the rules. Right now, the momentum for that does not appear to be there.

What are the prospects for rookies coming into Formula 1 next year? Many drivers are re-signing long contracts with their teams. Are there likely to be any new recruits? – Mia

The most likely place for a new driver to come into F1 next season is Haas, where Esteban Ocon’s position looks shaky.

The two main candidates there are Italy’s reigning Formula 2 champion Leonardo Fornaroli, who is part of McLaren’s driver development programme, and Brazilian Rafael Camara, who is second in F2 this year and part of the Ferrari driver academy.

Both have tested for Haas and are said to have impressed the team.

Haas will want a quick driver who brings money, and it’s not clear who the favourite is. Ryo Hirakawa, Haas’ reserve driver and a long-time protege of Haas’ technical partner Toyota, is also in the picture, but considered a less likely candidate.

Elsewhere, there is talk of Red Bull considering moving F2 championship leader Nikola Tsolov, who is Bulgarian, into their Racing Bulls team.

To do so, they would have to drop either Liam Lawson or Arvid Lindblad. It’s hard to see how it would be Lindblad, after such an impressive rookie campaign.

But Lawson has also been doing a good job this year, so it’s not a given.

At Cadillac, they have Indycar race-winner Colton Herta as reserve. They have been planning for Herta to be in F1 before too long – the idea behind him moving to Europe and doing Formula 2 this year was so he could learn the ropes on this side of the Atlantic and be as prepared as possible for graduation to F1.

But Herta has had a very difficult F2 campaign this year – his best result is a fifth place and he is 19th in the championship – so moving him up to F1 for 2027 would be a massive risk.

Ugo Ugochukwu, who won the Formula 3 title in Madrid on Sunday, is another American said to be of interest to Cadillac.

He had been part of the McLaren driver development programme for several years until they parted ways at the end of last season.

But even if Ugochukwu’s Cadillac links become formalised, next year is probably too early for him to make F1.

He’s also extremely tall – well over six foot and much taller even than Ocon, Alex Albon and George Russell, the current tallest drivers – so getting him into an F1 car would not be easy.

The other teams are pretty much locked down, although it’s still unknown whether Fernando Alonso is going to continue in F1 next year.

Mercedes driver Kimi Antonelli won the Spanish Grand Prix after McLaren’s Lando Norris lost out because of the bad timing of a virtual safety car.

Norris was leading comfortably from pole position when the VSC was called on lap 15. The timing was terrible for the world champion – he had already passed the pit exit when the VSC was called.

That meant Antonelli and Verstappen were able to pit under the VSC, saving time, while the caution period ended before Norris could make it around to the pits again.

He did then come in but, to make matters worse, the stop was slow and he rejoined in fifth place.

Norris was able to recover only to third around this track where overtaking is next to impossible.

Antonelli’s eighth win in 14 races this year puts an even tighter stranglehold on the championship for the Italian.

He is now 81 points ahead of team-mate George Russell, who finished fifth after a difficult race on a confusing strategy, and 101 clear of Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, who retired early on with brake failure.

The key stories of the maiden race on the new Madring were:

Norris knew that holding on to the lead would be tough from pole but he robustly defended from Antonelli into the first corner.

The Mercedes driver cut the chicanes at Turns One and Two, and again at Turns Five and Six, each time getting into the lead, each time having to give it back.

After that, Norris set about building a lead and looked to be in control of the race as he extended his lead progressively, moving 5.6 seconds clear 10 laps in, and 6.2 when Lance Stroll’s Aston Martin stopped at Turn 20 with brake failure.

The VSC was called, but Norris had already reached the pit straight, while Antonelli and Red Bull’s Max Verstappen had not and could come in.

Norris came in the next time around, but the VSC ended a couple of corners before he reached the entry to the pits, allowing the cars still on track to get back up to racing speed – a stop under a safety car saves a driver about 10 seconds over one under green-flag conditions.

To make matters worse, McLaren’s mechanics had trouble with both the right-hand side wheels, and the stop took seven seconds rather than the usual two.

Norris came out in fifth place, 6.3secs behind Russell, and his hopes of winning were gone.

More to follow