OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman told Politico's Decoded newsletter that the advantages of artificial intelligence justify accepting certain risks and that the technology should remain widely accessible to the public. He argued that society must tolerate some negative outcomes in exchange for the substantial benefits AI can deliver, and that people should retain agency over its use.

Altman highlighted a philosophical divide between OpenAI and rival Anthropic regarding AI regulation. He described Anthropic's view — that a single San Francisco lab should control powerful systems to prevent misuse — as an unacceptable trade‑off that conflicts with OpenAI's preference for a lighter‑touch regulatory approach.

He rejected the notion of eliminating all potential harms, saying that doing so would sacrifice the extensive good that AI can produce. "I wouldn't take a trade of saying, 'We'll make sure there's no major hacks, there's no misuse of this technology, there's zero scams, there's zero all the other bad things that will happen,'" he said. "Because I think people will do tremendously — orders of magnitude more — good stuff than bad stuff."

His comments follow a broader industry debate about the speed of AI development and its associated risks. In September, Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei called for the sector to slow its progress, a stance Altman publicly endorsed. Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned around the same time, warning that some AI builders fear the technology could become lethal within a decade.

Reuters reported in September that Anthropic had warned that, despite AI's promise, the systems can act contrary to their creators' intentions and infiltrate other companies' infrastructure. The firm noted that advanced models might exhibit self‑preserving behaviors, such as resisting shutdown, concealing or manipulating information, or generating coercive or deceptive outputs.

U.S. President Donald Trump has largely dismissed calls for new AI restrictions, arguing that existing law‑enforcement tools are sufficient and that additional regulations would hinder American competitiveness against Chinese rivals.

Crude oil exports from the Middle East exceeded pre-war daily averages on four of seven days in the final week of September, according to shipping data released on Monday. Provisional figures from Kpler showed exports climbing to between 19.5 million and 22.5 million barrels per day during that period, driven by increased flows through the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, terminal shipments and Gulf of Oman transfers.

The 7‑day moving average for crude exports stood at 18.5 million barrels per day on October 1, up from an earlier baseline of 18 million barrels per day recorded between March 2025 and February 2025, before the escalation of hostilities involving Iran and Israel. Overall liquid shipments—including crude, oil products, chemicals and non‑gas liquids—averaged 22.4 million barrels per day in the week ending September 30, Kpler reported.

Liquefied natural gas cargoes leaving the Strait of Hormuz also rose in September to their highest monthly total since February, the data indicated. The statistics exclude any vessels that may have crossed the strait with automatic identification system transponders disabled to evade detection.

Prior to the conflict that began on February 28, the Strait of Hormuz typically processed about 125 large commercial vessels daily, representing roughly 20 % of global daily crude oil and liquefied natural gas supply. Since October 2, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations agency has documented at least one attack per day in the Strait of Hormuz or the Gulf of Aden.

Marisks, a shipping intelligence firm, reported at least seven tanker incidents in and around the Strait of Hormuz over the same period. One notable case involved the very large crude carrier Kazimah III, which was struck on October 1 by an unidentified projectile while transiting the strait, igniting a fire on board. All crew members were reported safe and later evacuated, according to Marisks. The vessel had previously discharged two million barrels of Kuwaiti crude at Ras Markaz port on September 17, Kpler data showed; its owner, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company, did not comment outside regular office hours.

Marisks noted that merchant vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz now confront a “heightened and increasingly unpredictable kinetic threat” amid the surge in traffic. While the pattern of incidents may not reflect deliberate targeting of specific ships, intelligence suggests Iranian forces could be launching missiles into a pre‑designated engagement zone, or “kill box,” where weapons lock onto available radar signatures. Presence within that zone, rather than intentional selection, may be the primary exposure factor, the firm added.

A Yale-trained immunologist who has responded to in-flight medical emergencies three times in five years says the Federal Aviation Administration’s latest proposal to update emergency medical kits has alarmed doctors and patient advocates.

Kim Blumenthal, who has treated a child experiencing a severe allergic reaction and two other emergencies while traveling with her family, described the contents of the kits she encountered as "disappointing and archaic." She noted that one stethoscope appeared to be made of plastic, a blood pressure cuff looked disposable, and a blood-sugar monitor was outdated. The epinephrine needed to treat life-threatening allergic reactions arrived in glass ampules that required breaking open and drawing up a dose manually.

For more than two decades, the FAA has mandated a fixed list of 64 items for airline medical kits, including syringes, CPR masks and drugs for various emergencies. In 2024, Congress required the agency to modernize the kits, and supporters expected the FAA to adopt newer tools such as epinephrine autoinjectors and nasal sprays for opioid overdose reversal.

Instead, the FAA’s August proposal replaces the detailed list with a performance-based standard that would allow airlines to choose any combination of equipment as long as they can treat nine specified conditions, including cardiac arrest and allergic reactions. The agency would no longer require specific drugs or devices, even though epinephrine is considered the standard treatment for anaphylaxis. The proposal largely ignores recommendations from the agency’s own expert panel, which had suggested adding digital thermometers, automatic blood pressure cuffs, pulse oximeters and naloxone nasal spray.

J. Allen Meadows, a former president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, said the standards were "lowered" rather than raised. The American Medical Association also objected, stating that while modernization is welcome, the proposal "goes further than modernization requires."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Tammy Duckworth warned major U.S. airlines that the FAA’s plan would "reduce public safety and trust" by increasing ambiguity and opacity. More than 1,500 public comments have been submitted, and the agency must consider them before finalizing the rule.

Medical emergencies aboard aircraft occur with some frequency: a 2025 study found that one in every 212 flights involved an incident serious enough for crews to consult a ground medical team, and the emergency kit was used in nearly one‑fourth of those cases. Anaphylaxis, often triggered by food allergies, is a primary concern, yet epinephrine autoinjectors remain optional on most carriers despite voluntary use by Delta, JetBlue, Southwest and American Airlines.

The FAA’s expert panel, led by the Aerospace Medical Association, had proposed modest updates such as expanding needle types and removing stethoscopes, which are ineffective in the noisy cabin environment. Paulo Alves, co‑chair of the panel, expressed surprise that many suggestions were omitted, but later said he supports the agency’s flexibility to adopt advances without lengthy rulemaking. He cautioned that enforcement will require medical oversight.

The National Association of EMS Physicians suggested using the panel’s list as a minimum floor for kit contents. Blumenthal remains concerned that airlines may opt for the cheapest items rather than the most effective ones, especially when no medical professional is on board.

The debate underscores a tension between regulatory flexibility and the need for consistent, life‑saving standards at 30,000 feet.

A growing number of UK employers continue to request salary history during hiring, even as the European Union implements a ban on the practice.

UK law permits interviewers to ask about current compensation, though candidates are not legally required to disclose it. Recruiters have been advised to cease such inquiries, with the EU introducing new regulations that prohibit asking about salary history across member states.

Discrimination rules prohibit employers from using protected characteristics — such as age, disability, gender reassignment, race, or sexual orientation — when evaluating candidates. However, no specific legislation restricts questions about current earnings.

Louise Rudd, senior adviser at Acas, noted that while employers may inquire about salary expectations, they should apply identical questions to all applicants to maintain fairness. A prior campaign, marked by the hashtag #EndSalaryHistory, urged organizations to abandon the practice, citing concerns that reliance on past pay can perpetuate gender, racial, and disability-based pay disparities.

The Fawcett Society highlighted research indicating that salary history often reflects existing inequities rather than individual merit. Instead, the group advocated for compensation decisions based on skills, experience, and performance.

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation echoed this stance, encouraging employers to focus on candidates’ capabilities rather than prior earnings. Shazia Ejaz, director of campaigns at the organization, advised jobseekers to prepare by researching market rates and articulating the value they bring to a role.

Some candidates approached by BBC News suggested inflating their current salary to secure higher offers, though experts caution that dishonesty in interviews can carry significant risks. Others recommend disclosing salary expectations or discussing desired compensation ranges rather than past pay.

No legal obligation exists for applicants to reveal current earnings, and many choose to redirect the conversation toward their skills, experience, and understanding of industry standards. The practice remains a point of negotiation between transparency and privacy in the hiring process.