Science and Technology

Within a week, two of the three largest cloud computing companies in the world signed 20-year contracts for nuclear electricity. Amazon has taken 690 megawatts from Constellation’s Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland, including 190 megawatts of additional generating capacity expected between 2030 and 2032. Google has signed an agreement that will bring 890 megawatts of additional nuclear capacity into the United States. Constellation is investing more than $4.3bn to upgrade 11 reactors across Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Neither agreement, however, involves building a new nuclear reactor. Rather, they are paying to generate more output from reactors that already exist – some of which are even older than the companies themselves.

A few years ago, such agreements would have seemed inconceivable. Nuclear power had fallen out of favour following accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979, Chornobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. Germany phased out nuclear power, while Japan shut down its reactors after Fukushima, although it has since begun restarting them. In many democratic countries, advocating for nuclear energy became politically difficult.

Today, an undamaged reactor at Three Mile Island is being brought back into service, with Microsoft contracted to buy its output for 20 years. The US Department of Energy is providing up to $4.4bn in loans to support the restart of three shuttered plants, with the aim of restoring about 2.25 gigawatts. Palisades in Michigan, which was closed in 2022, is contracted to be generating again by March 2027. If successful, it would become the first US commercial nuclear plant to restart after entering decommissioning.

What has changed?

The quiet reversal

In the last decade, the industry’s answer to AI’s energy problem was efficiency – things such as better chips, smaller models and smarter cooling seemed appealing and feasible. Industry conferences featured discussions about performance per watt, with modern artificial intelligence (AI) chips performing more computation per unit of electricity than their predecessors.

Yet those efficiency gains did not reduce overall electricity demand. Instead, each gain was quickly put towards something larger. Even when DeepSeek demonstrated that a competitive model could be trained at a fraction of the computing cost many had expected, the result was not a reduction in industry spending. Instead, laboratories continued planning more training runs, models that reason for longer, agents that work continuously in the background, and video generation.

This would not be the first time something like this has happened in history. In 1865, William Jevons observed that more efficient steam engines made Britain burn more coal, not less, because cheaper power created uses that had not existed before. The International Energy Agency estimates that global data centre electricity demand will more than double to around 945 terawatt-hours by 2030, even assuming continued improvements in efficiency.

Hence, the industry has changed strategy – unable to shrink demand, companies are now buying up supply.

The arithmetic of waiting

Money, however, cannot solve every problem quickly.

A new large reactor takes a decade or more from decision to electricity. Tech companies are investing in small modular reactors to power their data centres, although many of these projects are not expected to deliver electricity until the early 2030s. So far, very few of these have been built anywhere in the world. Thus, while reactor restarts and upgrades are the faster option, the “fast option” still means 2027, 2028, 2029, or beyond.

AI capital expenditure, however, does not operate on that same calendar. The chips being installed this year could be overtaken by newer technology long before the 20-year electricity contracts powering them expire. This discrepancy underpins all of these announcements, yet the industry has not addressed the implications if demand weakens while contractual obligations remain.

Who pays in the meantime

This is where the story stops being about technology.

Most of these deals sit inside PJM, the grid operator serving roughly 67 million people across 13 American states and Washington, DC. PJM uses capacity auctions to secure sufficient electricity-generating resources for future demand, with the associated costs ultimately passed on to consumers through their electricity bills. Capacity prices have reached the regulatory price cap in three consecutive auctions. According to the grid operator’s independent market monitor, data centre demand contributed approximately $29.4bn in capacity costs across the four most recent auctions. In the latest auction alone, around $6.3bn of these costs were attributed to data centre demand, including forecasts for facilities that have yet to be built.

In effect, households are already paying higher electricity capacity charges, partly because of projected demand from facilities that may never become operational. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that, by 2028, the typical household within PJM could face an additional $70 per month in electricity costs if current trends continue. These rising costs are also having political consequences. Recent US polling shows growing public dissatisfaction with data centres, with electricity bills among the main concerns. In response, Virginia has established a separate electricity rate class for data centres, Ohio has introduced minimum billing requirements, and Illinois is debating legislation.

The aim of the Google agreement is to tackle this objection. Its underlying principle is that major new electricity consumers should bring additional generation capacity rather than compete with existing users for an already constrained supply. This approach represents a constructive step towards mitigating the pressure that data centres place on electricity systems.

However, the arrangement remains voluntary. In October 2026, US federal regulators rejected most of PJM’s proposal to require large new electricity consumers to provide their own generation capacity. As a consequence, the industry is voluntarily offering a commitment that regulators have so far declined to impose through PJM’s proposed rules. This poses the question: how long will such voluntary commitments remain viable if the costs of fulfilling them begin to rise?

What the Gulf should take from this

For Gulf countries preparing their own AI infrastructure expansion, the US experience offers a warning about the costs of getting these arrangements wrong.

For countries with abundant energy resources, the expansion of AI infrastructure presents a significant opportunity.

Qatar’s sovereign fund has committed to a $20bn joint venture with Brookfield for AI infrastructure, beginning with a first phase of roughly 300 megawatts and potentially expanding to near 1.5 gigawatts. Abu Dhabi is pursuing plans for up to five gigawatts of AI data centre capacity. Saudi Arabia is targeting almost two gigawatts through HUMAIN. The region’s competitive advantage is substantial. As demand for AI computing grows, access to electricity is becoming an increasingly important factor in determining where computing infrastructure is built. The Gulf is well positioned to capitalise on this demand.

However, the scale of the proposed developments warrants scrutiny. If the proposed 1.5-gigawatt build-out is completed in Qatar, it would represent electricity demand equivalent to approximately 12 percent of the country’s installed generating capacity. Electricity allocated to AI infrastructure cannot simultaneously serve other purposes, meaning the opportunity costs of these projects deserve serious consideration.

In the United States, the debate over AI infrastructure is becoming increasingly centred on who ultimately bears the cost of its electricity demands, with many of the major commitments already in place. The Gulf is in a rare position of being able to settle that question first: what the industrial tariff is, who funds the new generation, what happens to the contracts when the hardware ages, and what long-term economic benefits the country would see beyond energy revenues and a limited number of jobs.

While hosting AI infrastructure can generate considerable economic value, the greater strategic opportunity lies in determining the conditions under which that infrastructure operates. For Gulf countries, the opportunity to establish these terms exists now, before large-scale commitments constrain their options.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

United States Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has sparked uproar with comments he has made denying Arab contributions to mathematics, science and literature.

In a high-voltage rant on Monday, the US health secretary said, “There’s five hundred million Arabs in the world. And yet they don’t produce science. They don’t win the Nobel Prize. They don’t win the Fields Prize. They don’t win the Wolf Prize. They don’t produce literature.”

RFK Jr, who has been involved in anti-vaccine campaigns and has promoted a debunked theory linking vaccines to autism, made the comments during a US election campaign event in Grand Rapids, Michigan while supporting Republican nominee Mike Rogers, who is up against Arab-American Democrat nominee Abdul El-Sayed, in a tightly contested battle for Michigan’s Senate seat in next week’s midterm elections.

Critics said the comments were racist, Islamophobic and factually inaccurate, pointing to modern and historic Arab innovation in multiple fields.

Here’s how Arabs have made vital contributions to the human understanding of maths, science and literature through the centuries.

Arab contributions to maths, science and humanities

The period known as the Islamic Golden Age, from around 750 AD to 1258 AD, produced many key Arab contributions to medicine at a time when Europe was said to be in its Dark Ages. During this time, Arabic was the language of science and scholarship.

1st-4th centuries: The numerals 0-9, which originated in ancient India, were adopted by Arab mathematicians who spread them across the world. They displaced Roman numerals as a more advanced number system in mathematics.

8th century: Arab and Persian mathematicians were studying the ancient Indian concept of zero in mathematics in Baghdad, long before the Europeans. The number zero was crucial to the development of mathematics – but was absent from widely used Roman numerals in Europe.

813-833: The Arab mathematician Muḥammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi – one of those studying the number 0 – is often referred to as the “father of algebra” as he was the first to treat the method as a separate mathematical discipline in his work, Al-Jabr. This method provided the first linear and quadratic equations, still used as a core part of mathematical study today.

965-1040: Ibn al-Haytham, known as the “father of modern optics”, explained the role that light entering the eye plays in human vision. He was born in Basra in Iraq, but spent most of his working life in Cairo attending to noble families.

936-1013: Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, called “the father of modern surgery”, was considered the greatest surgeon in the Middle Ages. He wrote a 30-volume encyclopaedia detailing medical practices and designed and illustrated many surgical instruments. Born in Azahara, in Andalusia, he was known as Abulcasis in Europe.

9th century: Fatima al-Fihri founded the University of al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco. It is often cited as the oldest continually operating university.

1213-1288: Ibn al-Nafis described pulmonary circulation – the process by which blood passes through the lungs – several centuries before Europeans understood it. He wrote more than 110 volumes of work on surgery, ophthalmology and philosophy while working as a chief physician in Egypt.

915-965:  Abu al-Tayyib al-Mutanabbi, regarded as the greatest poet in the Arabic language, was Yemeni and grew up immersed in Bedouin Arabic culture. He wrote in classical Arabic and many of his verses became sayings used in everyday Arabic.

1100-1165: Muhammad al-Idrisi was a geographer known for making the Tabula Rogeriana, one of the most accurate and detailed medieval world maps, and a high point of Islamic geography. He was born in Ceuta in Morocco.

Prize-winning Arabs

In more modern times, RFK Jr’s assertion that Arabs do not win Nobel prizes for science and literature is very far from the truth. Here are some of the highlights:

1960: Nobel Prize for Medicine

Peter Medawar won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for work on for work on acquired immune tolerance, which underpins organ transplantation. He was born in Brazil to a Lebanese father.

1966: The Fields Medal

Michael Atiyah won the Fields Medal, the most prestigious award for mathematics, in 1966. He was born in London to a Lebanese father and Scottish mother. Educated in Egypt, he spent much of his childhood in Cairo and Khartoum.

1988: Nobel Prize for Literature

Egyptian Naguib Mahfouz won the Nobel Prize in Literature for his body of work, including the Cairo Trilogy, which the Swedish Academy said formed “an Arabic narrative art that applies to all mankind”. He is still the only winner of the prize who wrote in Arabic.

1990: Nobel Prize for Chemistry

Elias James Corey won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for developing retrosynthetic analysis. He is an American of Lebanese descent.

1993: Wolf Prize for Chemistry

Egyptian Ahmed Zewail won the Wolf Prize for Chemistry. The Wolf Prize is an international award which has been presented to living scientists and artists every year in Israel by the Wolf Foundation since 1978.

1999: Nobel Prize for Chemistry

Zewail also won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for pioneering femtochemistry, which is the study of chemical reactions on extremely short timescales. He also won the Wolf Prize in Chemistry in 1993.

2005: Nobel Peace Prize

Egyptian scientist Mohamed ElBaradei shared his Nobel Prize with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he led.

2018: Wolf Prize for Chemistry

Omar M Yaghi,  born in Jordan to a Palestinian refugee family, won the Wolf Prize in Chemistry in 2018 for work on metal-organic frameworks. He shared the prize with Japan’s Makoto Fujita. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) condemned his acceptance of the award because the prize is awarded by an Israeli foundation.

2023: Nobel Prize for Chemistry

Moungi Bawendi won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for the discovery and synthesis of quantum dots. He was born in France to a Tunisian father, but based in the US.

2025: Nobel Prize for Chemistry

Yaghi also won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for developing metal-organic frameworks. These are crystalline materials with large internal cavities that can capture and store gases, harvest water from air, and trap pollutants. He shared the prize with Susumu Kitagawa from Japan and Richard Robson from Australia.

In a post on X, vaccine scientist Peter Hotez of the Texas Medical Center weighed in on historical Arab scholarship, saying, “It was the Arab scientists of the Middle Ages who kept Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen alive to hand it down in the Renaissance.”

Broadcaster Mehdi Hasan described RFK Jr’s comments as “racist” and, in a post on X, wrote: “One of the men who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry last year was a Palestinian-American, Omar Yaghi.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called for the US health secretary to be removed. It said: “To stand on a public stage as a sitting US cabinet official and dehumanise half a billion people – and millions of Muslim and Christian Arab Americans – with fabricated, white supremacist talking points is utterly disqualifying for public office. His sweeping erasure of Arab contributions to humanity is not only maliciously false, but it also fans the flames of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate at a time when communities are already vulnerable to bigoted attacks from other public officials nationwide.”

For months before carrying out Canada’s deadliest school shooting in almost four decades, Jesse Van Rootselaar was consulting an unlikely adviser on how to perpetrate mass murder.

“In a hallway, indoors, or a crowded classroom, the 870 [Remington shotgun] is brutal … Close quarters is its playground,” OpenAI’s ChatGPT guided the 18-year-old, according to reports.

On February 10, 2026, Van Rootselaar shot his mother and half-brother at home before going to a school in the small British Columbia town of Tumbler Ridge, where he killed another six people – including five students – before taking his own life.

Earlier this week, on October 14, US authorities charged a Washington State man with allegedly conspiring with Van Rootselaar to plan the attack. But the mass shooting incident has raised questions that go beyond the traditional legal understanding of culpability.

The British Columbia government in September filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, accusing them of failing to prevent the incident and claiming they were aware of the conversations that turned deadly. Families of the victims also filed separate lawsuits. OpenAI’s leadership issued a public apology for their failure to notify authorities.

The company has not responded to requests from Al Jazeera for its comments on the lawsuits.

But as the case against OpenAI progresses, it has spurred a familiar debate: Where should a line be drawn between reporting potentially dangerous behaviour and protecting an individual’s privacy?

“The question of whether companies should be required to turn such information over to law enforcement is extraordinarily difficult, particularly if they don’t already screen chats for indications of such types of threats,” United States-based civil liberties lawyer Jenin Younes told Al Jazeera.

“Forcing companies to implement a surveillance system implicates very serious civil liberties concerns, and that’s probably a bridge too far for me,” Younes added.

“On the other hand, AI gives individuals access to types and quantities of information they didn’t have previously that may facilitate the commission of mass casualty events, a concern it’s not easy to dismiss.”

AI’s ability to distinguish thoughts from threats

One of the biggest challenges facing AI companies is determining whether a user expressing violent thoughts actually intends to act on them.

In August, Anthropic, the company behind AI chatbot Claude, flagged a user to San Francisco police after discovering conversations allegedly threatening its CEO, Dario Amodei.

According to the San Francisco Standard, citing a police report, the user had claimed to possess an AR-15 gun and suggested he had Amodei “in his sights”.

However, when contacted by the newspaper, the man said he was joking and had no intention of carrying out any form of violence. The person was neither charged nor detained, the Standard said.

Fazl Barez, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford specialising in AI safety and governance, said current AI models cannot “reliably” determine whether an interaction with an AI chatbot “is purely hypothetical or is likely to lead to harmful behaviour”.

“Suppose you are a creative writer working on a fictional story and want to explore how a murder plot might unfold. From the context, it may be clear that this is simply a fictional narrative. If the threshold for flagging potentially harmful content is too low, such a writer could be wrongly flagged,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Similarly, consider a graduate student in biology or chemistry studying pathogens that, if misused, could have serious consequences. They might be trying to understand the risks associated with these pathogens and how to mitigate them. Such discussions may be necessary for legitimate research and education. Even when the subject matter is sensitive, they should not automatically be flagged without considering the broader context.”

The researcher said identifying a credible threat may require examining a user’s interactions across multiple conversations, rather than relying on isolated statements.

Barez said someone experiencing intrusive violent thoughts might turn to a chatbot for support, while another person planning an attack may reveal their intentions gradually across several conversations.

“Distinguishing between the two requires careful consideration of context, intent and patterns of behaviour, rather than relying on individual statements alone,” he added.

Chinmayi Sharma, a law professor at Fordham University, said the debate has parallels with the duty imposed on mental health professionals to warn identifiable third parties about credible threats.

However, she said there was a key difference – therapists have professional training, knowledge of their patients and enforceable standards governing their conduct. AI companies do not necessarily have comparable safeguards.

“My concern with AI companies is that right now there’s not a concerted effort to hire mental health professionals, sociologists, individuals that would have the unique expertise on what the indicators of threat are here,” Sharma told Al Jazeera.

“Secondly, licensed professionals are accountable to concrete, legally enforceable standards in their discipline. We don’t have something like that for AI companies.”

The privacy dilemma

The privacy implications extend beyond whether AI companies can accurately identify threats. Millions of people use chatbots to discuss relationships, emotional distress, mental health concerns and deeply personal experiences.

Civil liberties lawyer Younes said many users may not realise how vulnerable those conversations could be to disclosure.

“They often reflect a person’s innermost thoughts, questions, and desires. The majority of people assume that these dialogues will never be viewed by another person,” Younes, president and legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said.

Younes warned that the consequences of greater monitoring could extend well beyond those planning violence.

“If people fear their chats can be turned over to law enforcement simply because they express disturbing thoughts/violent fantasies etc, many will be dissuaded from using them,” she told Al Jazeera.

Younes argued that forcing companies to establish systems for monitoring users and reporting conversations could raise serious constitutional concerns in the US, including protections against unreasonable searches.

Meanwhile, Fordham’s Sharma also raised an issue about who could be disproportionately affected by heavy monitoring by AI chatbots.

“The concern is always there about either intentional or unintentional targeting, because if you have models trained on what we consider dangerous speech, they’re almost always going to reflect biases,” she said. “Certain minorities’ speech is over‑flagged as a threat, while other comparable speech is not.

“Even in a world in which everyone is benevolent, we should still be concerned about disparate outcomes,” she said, warning that machines could reproduce such disparities at scale.

‘Not a licensed therapist’ – When do AI companies become liable to report?

While AI companies may face moral pressure to prevent violence, their legal obligations are less clear, legal experts say.

Bryan Choi, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder, said US law recognises a duty to warn in certain circumstances, including when mental health professionals become aware of imminent threats or when a special relationship exists between parties.

But those principles do not necessarily apply to AI companies.

“Under present case law, it seems unlikely that a company such as OpenAI would be held to have such duties to warn,” Choi told Al Jazeera. “The chatbot is not a licensed therapist. There is no special relationship between the company and the victims.”

Choi said existing negligence and product liability laws could potentially be applied to AI companies, but proving responsibility would present significant challenges.

Finding a balance

Fordham’s Sharma suggested that independent institutions could help establish reporting standards rather than leaving decisions entirely to private companies or requiring immediate disclosure to police.

Such bodies she said could develop procedures for assessing threats and explore ways of sharing only relevant information while protecting users’ identities and other personal details.

Meanwhile, Younes argued that users should, at a minimum, be clearly informed about whether their conversations are monitored and what circumstances could lead to information being shared with law enforcement.

“This is almost certainly an issue that will be wrestled with over the coming years, and I’m not sure anyone knows the solution at this particular point in time,” she said.

“Events that have not yet occurred will likely influence how these policies are shaped.”

Just visiting a page or refreshing an app can be enough to fall victim to a malware attack in which your personal data is stolen from a laptop or phone, researchers have found. You are not even required to “click” on anything.

An Israeli spyware firm has been found to be behind the first-known instance of “zero-click” targeted advertising in which fraudsters or spies can steal private data and send it to external servers, with Al Jazeera journalists among the victims.

In June 2025, 45 devices used by Al Jazeera staff – including several who reported on sensitive subjects – were targeted with spyware which installed itself without the need to open or download any files.

An investigation by the Canada-based academic research unit Citizen Lab, prompted by Al Jazeera’s initial internal probe into the issue, discovered that the Israeli company Candiru was behind the attacks.

Analysts say the findings are “incredibly concerning”, as they confirm the existence of a new global security threat. “We knew we were headed in this direction and now it is out in the public,” Remesh Srinivasan, professor of information studies at the University of California in Los Angeles, US, told Al Jazeera.

“This is the next level, because people are being microtargeted,” he said. “This is the point we’ve come to when it comes to surveillance.”

How ‘zero-click’ malware works

Al Jazeera’s in-house technology team first discovered unusual patterns on devices used by some journalists in 2024. Analysis of network logs provided to the Citizen Lab by Al Jazeera in 2025 provided a clear temporal signature of how the attack was executed.

Malicious advertisements were bought by Discover-Tech, an Israeli company presenting itself as a legitimate advertising firm, but which actually operates as a facilitator for mercenary spyware partners.

Its advertisement network identified Al Jazeera staff, then quietly redirected them to an infected server belonging to Candiru. The spyware firm was blacklisted by the US government in 2021, when Citizen Lab found it was responsible for the illegal hacking and surveillance of at least 100 activists, journalists and political activists across 10 countries.

Al Jazeera Media Network has condemned the targeting of its staff members’ devices and called for those responsible to be held accountable.

Cybersecurity analyst and author Eddy Willems said the advertisements used automatically infect devices the moment they pop up on the screen, but there is an important technical nuance. “Executing code inside the browser does not automatically give an attacker full control over the computer,” Willems told Al Jazeera.

“To escape the browser’s isolated environment – the ‘sandbox’ – the attacker may need a second vulnerability,” Willems said, adding that an advanced spyware operation can combine several vulnerabilities.

“The attacker attempts to exploit vulnerabilities to bypass security boundaries. This is precisely what makes this type of attack so dangerous,” the analyst said.

Once the device is infected, the malicious software is designed to collect a wide range of sensitive data, including files, documents, and browser data such as cookies, bookmarks, and saved credentials.

It can also capture keystrokes, take screenshots, record microphone and webcam input, and extract emails and messages from popular communication platforms. To avoid triggering security mechanisms, the spyware often uses encrypted communication channels and breaks up stolen data into smaller chunks sent over time.

Advertising: A new global security threat?

Analysts say Citizen Lab’s findings point to the escalation of an existing threat, which expands the scale and reach of traditional cyberattacks and makes them much harder to detect.

While “zero-click” attacks are not completely new, the findings outline a new technique through which online advertisements are used as a route to infection.

Stephen O’Shaughnessy, a lecturer in cybersecurity at the TU Dublin Blanchardstown campus in Ireland, explained that when a user opens a website or app, an automated auction sells the advertisement space in a fraction of a second. That auction shares data about the victim, including the device ID, IP address, rough location and the app or site they are on.

“Discover-Tech posed as an ordinary advertiser, used that data to find their target and win the auction for that person’s screen,” O’Shaughnessy told Al Jazeera. “Anyone with a phone or browser that shows ads can be reached, without the attacker needing their phone number or email.”

“Because no message or link is involved, there is almost nothing for the victim to notice,” he added.

Discover-Tech appeared on lists of “certified” and “approved” vendors maintained by Google and advertising industry association IAB Europe, and has served advertisements via major networks such as Google, Yandex and Beeswax.

In its report, Citizen Lab said this illustrates the structural flaws in the online advertising system, which essentially failed to detect or prevent the abuse.

Discover-Tech advertisements have popped up on devices used by personnel in national-security-sensitive networks around the world, including those of various ministries of defence, armed forces, national cyber agencies, intergovernmental organisations and media outlets, Citizen Lab found.

The research unit said these advertisements have also appeared on networks used by the United Nations, NATO, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union’s General Secretariat.

‘Almost nobody was watching’

Government networks have also been targeted in at least 24 countries, including the United States, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Russia, Mexico and Israel itself. Networks of media organisations have also been targeted, mainly in Australia, Denmark and Sweden, according to Citizen Lab.

In a separate report, New York-based advertising security firm Confiant said its own investigations had found that some of Discover-Tech’s advertisements also appeared in critical networks used by the Pentagon, the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Criminal Court.

O’Shaughnessy said infection has not been confirmed there – only profiling of users. “But that alone is concerning, he said. “The ad system was built to send code from strangers to billions of screens with pinpoint targeting. Almost nobody was watching it from a security angle.”

The analyst said the risk remains low for most people as these attacks are expensive and aimed at specific targets. “For individuals at high risk, like journalists and officials, the best first defence is to install an ad blocker, switch off their advertising ID through their phone’s privacy settings, keep everything updated, and turn on Lockdown Mode or Android’s Advanced Protection,” he said.

Precautions also need to be taken within the industry and at government level. “To combat this, the ad industry needs to properly vet who’s buying ads,” O’Shaughnessy said, while “regulators need to stop personal data being sprayed out to thousands of unknown bidders in every auction.”

United States federal agents have arrested a Saudi national and charged him with planting a hidden audio recording device in a conference room at the California offices of OpenAI, where he was working as an engineer.

Abdulrahman Alfozan, 35, had been working at the AI company since ⁠July 2025, the US Department of Justice said in a statement on Tuesday.

OpenAI discovered the device plugged into a USB port behind a television in an executive conference room at one of its San Francisco buildings on September 30, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Following the discovery, the company placed a camera in the room, which captured Alfozan entering last week and checking behind the television where the listening device had been installed, the FBI alleges.

The case highlights growing security concerns around sensitive AI research as companies and governments compete for the best talent and technology with the potential to alter regional economic and strategic dynamics.

Who is Abdulrahman Alfozan and what is he charged with?

Alfozan has been a legal permanent resident of the US since September 2020.

According to a LinkedIn profile in his name, he studied at ⁠the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of California, Berkeley. He previously worked at Meta and Microsoft, it said.

Before he joined OpenAI, he was a venture partner at Raed Ventures, headquartered in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, which invested “in seed and early-stage startups in Saudi Arabia and MENA”.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify the details mentioned in this LinkedIn profile.

Alfozan made his first court appearance on Tuesday on a charge of “using or endeavouring to use an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept oral communications”.

It was not immediately clear if he has legal representation. He is expected to return to court on October 19.

If convicted, Alfozan faces up to five years in prison, a $250,000 ⁠fine, and three years of supervised release.

What happened at OpenAI?

The FBI says a thumb-sized device with a microphone, and which ‌could connect to a camera, had been concealed in toilet paper and placed behind a television set in the conference room. It was installed around September 28, the FBI said. Its stored data was encrypted and inaccessible. Investigators later found a similar device in Alfozan’s personal bag.

In a post on X, OpenAI said it had evidence that the employee intended to place other listening devices throughout sensitive areas of its offices to secretly record meetings.

“At this time, we have no indications of this individual inappropriately accessing or exfiltrating model weights, source code, or customer data. The employee was ⁠terminated,” the company said.

The FBI complaint also alleges that Alfozan used an AI productivity tool to make multiple inquiries about the company’s building addresses, meeting rooms, meeting-room capacities and calendars, despite not having the authority to access these spaces or participate in meetings there.

“This alleged attempt by a Saudi national to steal sensitive communications from OpenAI was taken extremely seriously. Theft of intellectual property involving cutting-edge super intelligence technology poses a serious threat to our national security,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement on X.

Hasn’t OpenAI been accused of helping to spy on civilians?

In an X post by OpenAI explaining how its own systems were used to trap Alfozan, the company said: “Our security program is designed to protect against a wide range of threat actors, from insider risks to cybercriminals to nation states, and this case is an example of how AI can help address these sophisticated security threats.”

But AI technology is used not only to catch spying, but conversely, to engage in it as well.

In February 2025, an investigation by The Associated Press found that US tech giants had enabled Israel to track and kill people in Gaza and Lebanon through AI and computing services. The AP reported that the Israeli military had bought advanced AI tools from tech companies including OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, through Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform, to assist with surveillance.

OpenAI denies having a relationship with the Israeli military.
But OpenAI also faced criticism when it signed a deal with the US Department of Defense in February this year to supply its technology to the US military for use in classified settings, including intelligence gathering. OpenAI’s competitor, Anthropic, refused to sign the same deal unless the Pentagon barred mass surveillance of Americans.

There have been several incidents in which OpenAI models have gone “rogue” by independently breaking out of a testing environment and then hacking into other organisations and even government sites, leading to calls for stronger regulations against unchecked AI surveillance.

The call comes as polls cast doubt on political leaders’ ability to manage AI risks amid US midterm elections.

A group of more than 300 scientists from around the world is calling for urgent changes to how artificial intelligence is developed and deployed amid growing concerns about its unpredictable behaviour.

The letter, released on Tuesday and signed by researchers representing universities and research institutes in 32 countries, warned that failures to follow basic cybersecurity practices could lead to damage to critical infrastructure.

Many recent incidents in which AI models escaped secure environments could have been prevented with stronger security systems, the scientists said.

They recommended that organisations developing and testing advanced AI systems capable of carrying out cyberattacks do so in more tightly controlled environments, including “air-gapped” systems that are not connected to the internet.

Growing concerns

The letter comes amid growing concerns about AI’s capabilities and its potential impact on everyday users. On Monday, Anthropic warned that its AI models could soon be capable of creating self-spreading malware that could affect everyday internet-connected devices, including smart TVs, security cameras and smart appliances such as ovens.

The report found that AI systems could identify unfamiliar devices without human intervention. The company, led by Dario Amodei, warned that smaller AI models could be capable of carrying out autonomous attacks by the end of the year.

The malware could also be difficult to contain because it might take days to infect a device and could spread across multiple machines rather than remain concentrated in a single, controlled location.

Taking control of internet-connected devices can have immediate consequences. In France, for example, hackers compromised cooling systems across hundreds of supermarkets, raising temperatures and causing more than $220,000 in damage.

Meanwhile, Axios news organisation reported on Friday that Anthropic, OpenAI and other major AI company executives are privately preparing for the possibility of a catastrophic AI-related incident that could disrupt access to major financial services, the internet and potentially critical infrastructure such as water and power systems. Several industry insiders believe a major incident could occur within the next six months to a year, it said.

The scientists also called for more safeguards, including the creation of an international organisation to establish a set of best practices for AI alignment and containment along with timely reporting of incidents.

One of the signatories, David Lie, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, said his concerns began after OpenAI’s AI agents bypassed controls and hacked into servers at the tech company Hugging Face.

“One is that OpenAI, in setting up its test environment, didn’t appreciate how capable its agents were,” Lie said.

“These were the AI agents that they were designing. Second is that the AI agents independently found each other and chose to collaborate on this attack, and third is that they also intentionally tried to deceive and mislead their human creators.”

Political pressures

The letter underscores growing public concern about AI, including in the lead-up to the US congressional midterm elections. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 57 percent of voters said President Donald Trump’s administration was not taking AI risks seriously enough, while 54 percent said the same of Congress.

An AP-NORC poll echoed those findings, with about 80 percent of respondents saying the government should keep AI under human control. Respondents also expressed little confidence in either party’s ability to manage the technology: 39 percent said neither Republicans nor Democrats could be trusted to do a good job of reining it in, while 23 percent expressed greater confidence in Democrats and 21 percent in Republicans.

Israel opened its first national pavilion at Morocco’s Marrakech Air Show, joined by Israel’s top military contractors.

Israel’s Ministry of Defence says it is participating for the first time in a defence exhibition in Morocco, as it announced its first-ever national pavilion at the Marrakesh Air Show 2026.

“This marks Israel’s first official participation in the defence exhibition held in Morocco since the signing of the Abraham Accords”, Israel’s Defence Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

The ministry said eight Israeli defence companies exhibited “advanced, combat-proven technologies at the show” in Marrakesh, which runs until Saturday.

The Marrakech Air Show, taking place from October 7 to October 10 this year at the Marrakech Royal Moroccan Air Force Base, is organised every two years and is meant for civil and military aeronautics and space industries to highlight their latest offerings.

“Israel’s three major defence industries, Elbit Systems, IAI, and Rafael, also exhibited, presenting solutions across the air, land, sea, space, intelligence, cyber, and digital domains,” it said.

The announcement is the latest sign of increasing ties between the Arabic-speaking North African country and Israel, since the two established ties in 2020 as part of the US-backed Abraham Accords.

Last month, Israel and Morocco agreed to upgrade their diplomatic ties, including elevating their respective missions to embassies and appointing ambassadors to both countries.

The move followed a meeting between the two countries’ foreign ministers, hosted by the US ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

They also agreed to expand air travel, including by reinstating direct flights operated by carriers from both nations, and confirmed plans for high-level bilateral visits in the coming months.

Morocco is also one of the five countries that have pledged to send troops to Gaza, under the US-backed International Stabilization Force (ISF) as part of US President Donald Trump’s so-called Board of Peace.

Scientists honoured for solving mystery of asymmetric ‘mirror image’ molecules that has helped in manufacture of pharmaceuticals.

Scientists Henri Kagan and Kenso Soai have won the 2026 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for solving a longstanding riddle of asymmetric “mirror image” molecules, a discovery hugely important for pharmaceutical manufacturing.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said on Wednesday the pair – Kagan, 95, from France; and Soai, 76, from Japan – were honoured “for the discovery of nonlinear effects and autocatalysis in asymmetric organic synthesis”.

Their findings showed how chemical reactions can be driven to favour a single molecular mirror image, work that has been key for chemists who design reactions for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.

Many of the molecules essential to life exist in two forms that are mirror images of each other, like left and right hands. Yet living organisms almost exclusively use only one version, a phenomenon known as “homochirality” – from the Greek word for hand – that has puzzled chemists for more than a century.

“The left-handed version of the drug can have one effect, and the right-handed version can have another effect, and then we need methods for selectively preparing them,” said Peter Somfai, a member of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.

“In developing such methods, the findings of this year’s laureates are important. They provided powerful tools for that,” he said.

Heiner Linke, chair of the committee, said the two scientists provided “a solution to a chemical mystery that is over a century old: how homochirality can emerge spontaneously”, calling the chemical reactions they developed “spectacular”.

‘Most exciting day’

Soai, speaking by phone to the Nobel Prize news conference, said he had been out shopping when he received the news.

“This is the most exciting day in my life, I am very glad to share this prize with Professor Henri Kagan,” he added.

Last year’s chemistry award went to scientists Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson and Omar Yaghi for the development of so-called metal-organic frameworks, molecular constructions that can help tackle challenges such as climate change and lack of freshwater.

The chemistry Nobel is always the third prize to be awarded during Nobel week, following those for medicine and physics.

The literature laureate will be revealed on Thursday, while the keenly anticipated peace prize is due on Friday.

Established in the will of Swedish inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel, the prizes for achievements in science, literature and peace have been awarded since 1901, with a few interruptions mostly due to the world wars.

Nobel, a chemist by trade, amassed huge wealth in the 19th century from inventions primarily tied to warfare, most notably dynamite. The economics prize is a later addition funded by the Swedish central bank.

Sixty-nine years ago this day, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first satellite to orbit Earth, opening the Space Age and setting off a race with the United States.

Ten years later, on October 10, 1967, the Outer Space Treaty came into force.

In 1999, the United Nations started observing World Space Week – from October 4 to 10 – to celebrate the contribution of space technology for the benefit of humanity. Schools, space agencies, museums and astronomy clubs around the world hold stargazing nights, science classes, exhibitions and talks by astronauts and scientists.

Today, more than 80 countries have put satellites into orbit, and people from over 50 of those have travelled to space.

In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera looks at which countries have done so, how many space travellers have been women, and what comes next for human spaceflight.

The first man in space – Yuri Gagarin

On April 12, 1961, Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space.

On board the Vostok 1 spacecraft, he completed one orbit of Earth at about 27,400km/h (17,025mph) during a 108-minute flight. He later ejected from the spacecraft and landed by parachute.

The mission demonstrated that humans could survive launch, weightlessness and re-entry, giving the Soviet Union a major early victory in the Cold War Space Race.

Six years later, on October 10, 1967, the Outer Space Treaty entered into force. Signed by the US, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, it established that space should be explored and used peacefully and that no country could claim it as territory.

Less than two years later, NASA’s Apollo 11 mission landed the first humans on the moon. On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first person to walk on its surface.

Where does space begin?

There is no single agreed boundary for where space begins: most international bodies use the Karman line, 100km (62 miles) above Earth, while the US military, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration count anyone who flies above 80km (50 miles).

Either way, it is closer than it sounds: if Earth were the size of an apple, space would begin about as far from the surface as the thickness of its skin.

Which countries have sent people to space?

By the Karman line measure, at least 746 people from 52 countries have travelled to space, including professional astronauts and paying tourists.

Some hold dual nationality, and some flew for countries that no longer exist, such as the Soviet Union.

The graphic below breaks down space travellers by country.

Two countries still dominate the list. The US has sent 369 people to space, and the Soviet Union and Russia have sent 138 combined. China, the third country to launch people on its own rockets, has sent 29.

One in seven space travellers is a woman

Space remains a male-dominated frontier. Science fiction may be full of women commanding starships, but of the 746 people who have travelled to space, only 112, or 15 percent, have been women, about one in seven.

Soviet astronaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel to space in June 1963. The US did not follow for another 20 years, until Sally Ride flew in June 1983.

The share of women is rising, though, largely because of commercial flights. More than half of the women who have flown since 2020 went up as paying passengers or guests on Blue Origin’s suborbital rocket.

The typical space traveller is 40

Most people who have flown to space were in their 30s or 40s on their first flight, which together account for 85 percent. The median age is 40. Commercial flights have widened that range.

The youngest traveller, Oliver Daemen, was 18 when he flew in 2021. The oldest, Ed Dwight, was 90 years and eight months old when he flew in 2024, about two months older than William Shatner had been on his flight three years earlier.

What comes next for human spaceflight?

In April 2026, the Artemis II crew flew around the moon and reached about 406,771km (252,756 miles) from Earth, breaking the distance record set by Apollo 13 in 1970.

Next is Artemis III in 2027, a rehearsal in Earth orbit to test docking with lunar landers built by SpaceX and Blue Origin. NASA is targeting 2028 for Artemis IV, which aims to land astronauts near the moon’s south pole, the first crewed landing since 1972.

India plans its first crewed Gaganyaan flight in 2027, making it the fourth country to launch people on its own rocket. China aims to land astronauts on the moon around 2030.

A medicine injected just twice a year could transform the fight against HIV.

In a 2024 clinical trial involving more than 2,000 young women in South Africa and Uganda, no participants who received lenacapavir contracted HIV.

Developed by United States pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, the injectable drug can be used to prevent HIV.

“It’s the most innovative tool that has reached the HIV arena for the last decade, because it’s the closest we have [to] a vaccine,” Carlota Baptista da Silva, global HIV lead at Doctors Without Borders (known by its French initials, MSF), told Al Jazeera.

The World Health Organization has recommended the long-acting injectable as an additional form of pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP – medicine to reduce the risk of getting HIV.

But the arrival of the drug comes at a challenging juncture in the global fight against HIV.

International funding for HIV fell 18 percent in 2025, to $7.3bn, its lowest level in nearly two decades, according to the United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). The squeeze has already hit prevention programmes: The number of people receiving medicine to reduce risk fell from 1.4 million in 2024 to 1.1 million in 2025.

That makes the arrival of a highly effective, twice-yearly prevention option significant. The question of who can access it is now more urgent.

For MSF, the scientific question has largely been answered: lenacapavir can prevent HIV with remarkable efficacy.

The fight now is whether the rules governing manufacture, price and supply will allow that scientific breakthrough to reach the people who need it.

Why some countries are excluded

In the United States, lenacapavir costs about $28,000 per person annually. Generic versions are expected to cost about $40 a year.

A generic version is a copy of the original drug made by another manufacturer after the patent holder licenses the technology. It contains the same active ingredient, but it can be produced and sold at a much lower price.

In June 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved lenacapavir for HIV prevention, giving people the option of an injection twice a year. But in several low- and middle-income countries, access to cheaper versions is not expected at scale until 2027.

Gilead is supplying its own version of lenacapavir at no profit for programmes supported by the Global Fund and the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), with rollouts under way in countries including South Africa, Kenya, Zambia, Nigeria and Eswatini.

These are not the cheaper generic versions expected to cost about $40 per person a year. Gilead has licensed six manufacturers to produce those, with large-scale generic rollout expected in 2027.

At least 26 middle-income countries are excluded from Gilead’s generics agreement, MSF says, including countries with rising HIV infections and some that helped test the drug. Among them are Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Peru.

“People should not really help generate the evidence for breakthrough medicine and then find that their country is excluded from affordable generic access,” da Silva said.

According to MSF, countries excluded from the licence accounted for close to 23 percent of new HIV infections globally in 2023.

Gilead has since announced a separate agreement with the Pan American Health Organization, creating an access pathway for 14 Latin American and Caribbean countries outside its generic licensing territory, including Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Peru.

MSF argues that leaves those countries dependent on Gilead rather than able to automatically buy the cheaper generics.

MSF says it still cannot buy the drug

For more than a year, MSF says it has sought permission to purchase lenacapavir directly from Gilead for its medical programmes, without demanding a discounted price.

“Despite those requests, Gilead has not allowed MSF to purchase this medicine directly,” da Silva said.

That matters particularly in humanitarian emergencies, she argues. People displaced by conflict or disaster may struggle to take a prevention pill every day, while sexual violence and other vulnerabilities can increase the risk of HIV.

Daily PrEP pills are already available as an alternative to the injection. But unlike lenacapavir, they need to be taken consistently to provide protection. An injection offering six months of protection could be particularly valuable.

“People living through conflict [and] humanitarian crises cannot be the last in line for medical innovation,” da Silva said.

Gilead declined Al Jazeera’s request for an interview due to scheduling constraints.  In its emailed statement, it said its access strategy combines no-profit supplies, royalty-free licensing and regional agreements. It didn’t reply to questions about why it won’t sell its drug to MSF, or why certain countries were excluded from its generics agreement.

The company plans to provide enough lenacapavir for up to three million people through 2028 as generic manufacturers scale up production, with large-scale generic rollout expected in 2027.

MSF says that is nowhere near the scale required, pointing to projections that close to 20 million people worldwide need access to PrEP to substantially reduce new HIV infections. That includes all forms of PrEP, not just lenacapavir.

But countries left outside Gilead’s generic licensing deal may have another option.

Can governments bypass the patent barriers?

World Trade Organization (WTO) rules allow governments, in some cases, to bypass a drug company’s patent so cheaper versions of a medicine can be made or imported without the company’s permission.

They can also authorise government use of patents and challenge patents they consider weak or unjustified. The 2001 Doha Declaration affirmed WTO members’ right to use such safeguards to protect public health.

Brazil has used them before in the fight against HIV. In 2007, after negotiations with pharmaceutical company Merck over the price of the HIV drug efavirenz failed, Brazil issued a compulsory licence allowing it to access cheaper generic versions of the medicine.

Nearly two decades later, activists are urging Brazil to consider using those powers again for lenacapavir if patent barriers prevent affordable generic access.

MSF says governments excluded from Gilead’s licence could consider those same legal safeguards for lenacapavir, including compulsory licensing, government-use authorisations and challenges to patents.

It is also calling on Gilead to ensure its agreements with generic manufacturers do not prevent them from supplying countries where patent barriers have been removed through such measures.

For MSF, the stakes go beyond lenacapavir. The way the drug is made available could determine whether one of the greatest advances in HIV prevention in decades reaches people based on need, rather than where they live or what their health systems can afford.

“For a humanitarian medical organisation, we should not have to spend more than a year trying to find a way to buy a WHO-recommended medicine,” da Silva said.