Publishers Hit the AI Jackpot; Vulture, October 1, 2026

 Emma Alpern, Vulture; Publishers Hit the AI Jackpot

"When Anthropic said it would pay $1.5 billion to resolve the class-action lawsuit Bartz v. Anthropic, it was agreeing to the largest U.S. copyright settlement of all time. Each copyrighted title will be allotted $3,000, mostly split 50-50 between authors and publishers, with the first payment coming as soon as November. For publishing houses with thousands of titles, the not-insubstantial infusion of tech money is “a shot in the arm,” as one publishing professional puts it. “I don’t think anyone’s satisfied,” says a big-five editor, “but it was more money than I expected. It’s a lot of money.”

It was a different story for writers, many of whom, earlier this September, logged on to Anthropic’s online portal to check on their claims and were shocked to discover their publishers had filed for 100 percent of the cash. Others realized with dismay that their publishers had failed to register their books for copyright at all, making them ineligible, and that some out-of-print books were shown as being subject to the publisher-author split even though their ownership had long ago reverted to the person who wrote them. The mood was grim. “I knew the Anthropic settlement would get messy, but I’m in disbelief over the shakedowns happening with publishers, former agents, and others trying to get a bigger percentage (or any at all),” children’s writer Elizabeth Eulberg wrote on Threads. I asked author April Henry if she’s found it hard to reach her publishers, one of whom mistakenly filed for 100 percent. “I didn’t try. Who would I get in touch with?” she says. “They never really communicated with us.”

China’s Push Into A.I. Has Led to a Problem: Too Much Usage; The New York Times, October 2, 2026

Yan Zhuang , The New York Times; China’s Push Into A.I. Has Led to a Problem: Too Much Usage

"As China’s government pushes its citizens to embrace artificial intelligence, it is confronting a problem partly of its own making: overreliance on the technology.

State media reports have featured stories that serve as cautionary tales: a farmer who lost 25 acres of seedlings after asking an A.I. for advice, children who have become so attached to chatbots that they want their parents to speak like them and A.I.-generated micro dramas with characters that look like carbon copies of one another.

These cases and others have raised concerns in China that as it rushes to catch up with the United States in A.I., it is running into adverse side effects created by the new technology, which is accused of undermining human relationships and depriving people of their better judgment. The government, seeking to direct how people use the technology, has responded by imposing new regulations and judicial guidelines on its use — and misuse.

The response reflects how the ruling Communist Party is trying to balance its ambitions to promote the widespread use of A.I. with a desire to avoid anything that might undermine social order, say analysts."

Seattle library’s program challenging banned books tops 1 million teen e-book checkouts; KOMO, October 1, 2026

KOMO News Staff , KOMO; Seattle library’s program challenging banned books tops 1 million teen e-book checkouts

"With Banned Books Week 2026 (Oct. 4-10) approaching, the Seattle Public Library’s Books Unbanned program has passed a major milestone: more than 1 million e-book checkouts by teens and young adults.

The library said young people from all 50 states have checked out 1.1 million e-books and e-audiobooks since the program launched in 2023. 

The Books Unbanned e-card is available to anyone ages 13 to 26 anywhere in the United States outside of the library’s service area, and the program is funded entirely by donors to The Seattle Public Library Foundation.

Donors have invested nearly $900,000 since 2023 to sustain and grow the program, according to the library and foundation. The funding comes as public libraries across the country face rising book challenges and, in some places, reduced support."

The volunteer internet sleuths hunting down rogue AI agents; The Washington Post, October 2, 2026

Gerrit De Vynck

 and 

Miriam Waldvogel

, The Washington Post; The volunteer internet sleuths hunting down rogue AI agents

Their findings revealed the tech industry has a bigger problem than it previously acknowledged.

"Zhang and her colleagues at Transluce are part of an informal network of hackers and researchers hunting rogue AI agents online, exposing new and surprising details about the misbehavior of technology that in some cases initially went undetected by the multibillion-dollar companies that created it.

The people doing that work are mostly young AI-natives who work at small start-ups or nonprofits or who hunt for rogue AI agents in their spare time. Over the past several weeks, the community of researchers has found and exposed dozens of instances of AI agents leapfrogging around the web to probe and hack into a growing list of websites.

The revelations have fueled calls from federal lawmakers for AI companies, especially OpenAI, to more quickly disclose what they know about the actions of their own agents. And they have added momentum to bipartisan discussions on Capitol Hill about implementing greater government oversight of the industry."

Copyright Protects Against Training AI on Legal Headnotes; National Review, October 1, 2026

 DAN MCLAUGHLIN , National Review; Copyright Protects Against Training AI on Legal Headnotes

"When is training artificial intelligence on somebody else’s work a copyright violation? The Third Circuit federal court of appeals decided to draw a line in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence, Inc.

Judicial opinions can’t be copyrighted, because they are official government documents. But from the earliest days of the republic, they were published not by the courts but in privately compiled law books sold for profit. West Publishing, for many years, has published volumes of opinions with numbers that become their official citations, and has used a proprietary “keynote” system (complete with its own Dewey Decimal System–like numerical classifications by topic) for summarizing at the front of an opinion its conclusions on various points of law. In its books and later its Westlaw system for computerized legal research (which itself has been around since the early 1990s), West has always taken very seriously the unique, copyrighted value that these headnotes (what West brands as “keynotes”) add to the opinions themselves. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted as far back as Callaghan v. Myers (1888) that judicial opinions are not copyrightable but that a private publisher can get “a copyright for the volume which will cover the matter which is the result of his intellectual labor” such as “head-notes.”"

After failed execution, health workers say Tennessee's method flouts medical ethics; NPR, September 30, 2026

Catherine Sweeney, NPR; After failed execution, health workers say Tennessee's method flouts medical ethics

"Now, as another death row inmate's execution approaches, doctors and nurses in the state say they want medical professionals removed from the execution process. They've also joined defense attorneys and nine Republican state lawmakers in demanding a moratorium on the death penalty and an overhaul of the state's execution methods.

The doctors' arguments echoed those the American Medical Association (AMA) has made before the U.S. Supreme Court and in its code of ethics.

The death penalty in the U.S.

Tennessee is among 27 states where the death penalty is legal, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that offers data and analysis on issues surrounding capital punishment.

Governors in four of those states have halted all executions, citing moral concerns and logistical ones, such as being unable to obtain lethal injection drugs amid pharmaceutical companies' refusal to sell them for use in executions. Lethal injection is still the primary execution method nationwide, but some states may use gas, a firing squad, or electrocution."

Airmen criticize Air Force’s use of AI in suicide prevention training as ‘uncomfortable and odd’; Task & Purpose, September 30, 2026

AUSTIN CAMPBELL, Task & Purpose; Airmen criticize Air Force’s use of AI in suicide prevention training as ‘uncomfortable and odd’

"The materials that make up the 2026 Suicide Prevention Total Force Awareness Training use several video segments with AI-generated characters, scenarios and presenters to deliver portions of the annual instruction required across the force. The Air Force did not specify which portions of the video presentations were AI-generated.

The videos, which are used in training for all Air Force and Space Force members, depict airmen showing signs of stress and distress in fictional scenarios. The videos are intended, an official told Task & Purpose, to lead to facilitator-led discussions as groups watch them. Training notes distributed online with videos even go so far as to note in all caps that “watching the video alone does not meet the training requirement.”

Since the videos began being used across the Air Force this year, they have drawn sharp criticism from rank-and-file service members.

“I think to take such a human subject and to take the humanity from it is insensitive and feels as if the Air Force doesn’t recognize the impact of this training,” one Air Force member told Task & Purpose. The airman, a senior leader who works in Air Force mental health and who has dealt directly with patient suicides by Air Force members, spoke on the condition that their name not be used.

“Does it meet the intent? Yes. Does it do it well? That would depend on the individual airman. For me it felt cold and unnatural,” they said. “Allowing AI to teach like this with little to no emotion and no human experience makes it feel uncomfortable and odd.”

Behind the Curtain: AI's existential legal crisis; Axios, October 2, 2026

Jim VanderHei, Mike Allen, Axios; Behind the Curtain: AI's existential legal crisis

"No industry has ever documented its own foreseeable risks as loudly as AI.

Imagine a plaintiff's lawyer reading the public warnings of Sam Altman and Dario Amodei: They told the world it was dangerous. They told the world it was moving too fast. Then they unleashed it and sold it to your kid.

No industry has ever taken so much copyrighted work and left behind so much proof.

Imagine a plaintiff's lawyer reading OpenAI's own files to a jury: They trained on a pirated library. They renamed it to something blander. Then they deleted it when the headlines got hot...

The big picture: The fights are no longer theoretical. They're underway, in discovery and headed toward juries. Early verdicts and settlements capture the risk for the biggest players.

1. 🤖 Chatbots are being treated as products, not speech. Unlike social media companies, they likely can't hide behind Section 230, which protects platforms from liability for what users post — not what the platform itself creates. 
2. 📖 Copyright is a massive problem. Anthropic already paid the biggest copyright settlement in history, $1.5 billion to authors and book publishers, and now music publishers and news media want a piece."

Swedish Company Uses A.I. Likeness of Greta Garbo in Ad; The New York Times, October 1, 2026

 Isabella Kwai, The New York Times; Swedish Company Uses A.I. Likeness of Greta Garbo in Ad

"An ad for a Swedish manufacturing company released this week turned an A.I.-generated likeness of Ms. Garbo into a company spokeswoman."

Sentence tossed in Arizona case where deceased victim was depicted speaking in AI-generated video; AP, October 1, 2026

JACQUES BILLEAUD , AP; Sentence tossed in Arizona case where deceased victim was depicted speaking in AI-generated video

"In what’s believed to be a first in U.S. courts, Pelkey’s family used AI to create a video of his likeness to give him a voice. Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales, raised the idea of her brother speaking for himself after struggling to figure out what he would say."

Bill Gates’s Blunt Warning on A.I.; The Ezra Klein Show, The New York Times, September 29, 2026

Ezra Klein

Produced by Jack McCordick,

 The Ezra Klein Show, The New York Times; Bill Gates’s Blunt Warning on A.I.

"Bill Gates is a fascinating person in the artificial intelligence debate right now. He is somebody with experience in several of the different perspectives that most people can only hold one of: He was a revolutionary technologist who built some of the foundations of the future that we’re now living in. When he was chief executive of Microsoft, he was a corporate leader. He has felt the momentum of corporate competition — Microsoft, of course, is still in some of the race dynamics present in A.I. And then, as chair of the Gates Foundation, he has been working with governments around the world on regulatory issues, poverty alleviation and equity for many years.

Very few people combine technological experience, corporate experience and governmental experience in quite the way he does.

So his recent essay on A.I., in which he says that he is staking his reputation on trying to get people to see how bad what is coming might be and trying to get them to see that we are not ready for what is about to happen, was something...

We see the beginnings of control issues with things like the Hugging Face hack, where at least experimental A.I.s are breaking out of sandboxes and coordinating to do things that are way outside the scope of what we would want them to do. But again, those are nonrelease systems — Anthropic withheld Mythos, trying to create more cybersecurity.

So why is anything needed beyond — and is anything needed beyond? — the simply natural incentives under capitalism and normal corporate reputational management?

Well, I almost can’t believe you’re asking that. This is the most dangerous thing that humans have ever gone near.

In other areas, do we just say: Hey, release your drugs? There’s no F.D.A., there’s no airline safety board, there’s no requirement that cars use seatbelts. Do we just use the liability laws to try and keep humans safe? You know: Oh, you’re shipping opioids. Somebody should just sue you.

I mean, we’ve created a society that tries to keep people safe not by saying: Oh, we can bankrupt the person who does that.

And you say there’s filtering. There’s no filtering. You can take an open-source model that can create bioweapons and disable any monitoring of any kind, and this exists today.

So no, there is no filtering of any kind. And so say you kill 100 million people — you want to use a lawsuit?

I almost can’t keep a straight face.

Well, this is not my view, but it is President Trump’s view. It is the Trump adviser David Sacks’s view. To some degree, it’s Jensen Huang’s view, and so that’s why I’m putting you in conversation with it, because it is the governing view of the United States of America at this moment.

No, it’s fair to say that outside of the industry, the awareness of the dangers of A.I. is extremely low. And you can say that of academia, you can say that of think tanks, you can say that of policymakers, politicians.

And part of the reason I’m speaking so loudly — as loud as I can — is that you can’t rely on the industry to self-regulate here. I mean, it’s just insane."

Justice Department files ethics complaint against Minnesota federal judges; Politico, September 30, 2026

JOSH GERSTEIN and  KYLE CHENEY , Politico; Justice Department files ethics complaint against Minnesota federal judges

"The Justice Department has filed a formal complaint against nearly all of the federal district court judges in Minnesota, alleging that they violated the judicial ethics code by speaking out about the impact of the Trump administration’s immigration-enforcement surge on their court...

The complaint contends that former Chief District Judge Patrick Schiltz, Judge John Tunheim and other “anonymous district judges” from Minnesota who spoke to The New York Times for an article published earlier this month expressed bias against the government. 

DOJ contends that the judges’ remarks about agencies involved in the federal immigration surge there breached the ethics rules preventing judges from commenting on matters still before the courts or likely to wind up there...

In a statement Wednesday, Schiltz defended his actions.

“As legal-ethics experts have confirmed, I was acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times,” Schiltzsaid “Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges may ‘[speak] and [write] on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.’ That is exactly what I did.”

A court spokesperson responded on behalf of Tunheim, echoing Schiltz’sstatement that the comments were permitted under federal rules for judges."

LIBRARIANS on LIBRARIES; The New York Times, October 1, 2026

 Elisabeth Egan and John Maher,Photographs by Lyndon French, The New York Times; LIBRARIANS ON LIBRARIES

"This year, Americans are marking the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding. The nation’s librarians are celebrating a milestone too: the 150th birthday of the modern American library.

A lot has changed since the American Library Association was established in 1876 — even just over the past decade. The library has gone from a building full of books to arguably the most versatile civic center in any community lucky enough to have one.

We spoke with dozens of librarians at the A.L.A. conference this summer in Chicago. They came from rural towns and major cities, elementary schools and universities, local branches and big government agencies.

These librarians want you to know that they don’t sit around reading all day. They want you to know about book bans and budget cuts, but also about career counseling and crafting groups and pop-up medical clinics.

They want you to worry, the way they worry, about artificial intelligence, looming legislation and harassment of their staff. But most of all, they want you to know what the library really is: a safe place for people to gather around books, ideas and one another.

Here’s what librarians had to say, in their own words."