Who Controls the Enhanced Human? Examining Human-Sovereignty Transhumanism - Technology Org

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. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemslist 1 of 4Ex-OpenAI staff say they were fired for raising safety concernslist 2 of 4Anthropic AI model submits false homicide tip to Philadelphia policelist 3 of 4AI could self-replicate on home devices within ‘months’, Anthropic sayslist 4 of 4French fridge fright: Why supermarkets have become target for hackersend of listMany recent incidents in which AI models escaped secure environments could have been prevented with stronger security systems, the scientists said.

The Karolinska Institute awarded the 2026 Nobel Prize in Medicine to researchers Karl Deisseroth of Stanford University, Peter Hegemann of Humboldt University in Berlin, and Georg Nagel of the University of Würzburg. Their discoveries led to the development of optogenetics, a technique where scientists can turn individual nerve cells on or off using beams of light. According to Per Svenningsson, chair of the Nobel Committee for Medicine, “Optogenetics provides opportunities for mapping the brain in a way that we could once only dream of.” No other technique allows for such precise study of a living brain, helping researchers better understand the functions of our nervous systems as well as various neurological diseases and disorders. But this prize is not just a celebration of neuroscience. It also serves as a triumphant example of what can happen when different disciplines of biology converge, as the findings that served as the basis for the development of optogenetics emerged from research in microbiology. At the end of the last century, Peter Hegemann began a series of studies to understand how the single-celled alga Chlamydomonas is able to detect and react to light.

For years, cybersecurity leaders focused on one main challenge: protecting their organizations from cyberattacks. Today, however, another question is becoming just as important: how much control do organizations really have over the technologies they rely on for protection? This question is at the center of a growing conversation around cybersecurity sovereignty. As cyberthreats have evolved, security platforms have become much more than tools running quietly in the background. They have access to critical systems and sensitive information, receive frequent updates and, increasingly, use artificial intelligence to help identify threats and support decisions during security incidents. For CISOs, this changes the way cybersecurity technology should be evaluated. Asking whether a product can protect the organization is still essential. But there is now another question to consider: who is behind the technology we trust to protect us, and how much visibility and control do we have over it? That leads to practical concerns:  Where is security data stored and processed? Which countries or jurisdictions may have authority over it? How are software updates created and delivered?