Latest news with #DoD
TechCrunch
4 hours ago
- Business
- TechCrunch
Could OpenAI fill Microsoft's shoes?
OpenAI recently announced a $200 million deal with the U.S. Department of Defense, which has us wondering: Could this further strain the company's relationship with its biggest backer, Microsoft? After all, there have been numerous reports about growing tensions between the two companies, particularly as they become more competitive over enterprise deals. Today, on TechCrunch's Equity podcast, hosts Anthony Ha and Max Zeff discuss how the OpenAI/DoD deal reflects Silicon Valley's increasingly cozy relationship with the military and why industry leaders are calling for an AI 'arms race.' Listen to the full episode to hear more highlights from the week, including: Whether it's a good thing that Vice President JD Vance joined Bluesky (and was briefly suspended) What it means that Wix acquired a six-month-old 'vibe coding' startup for $80 million (and why Anthony hates the phrase 'vibe coding') A panel in which investor Ali Partovi and Cognition President Russell Kaplan discuss what technical talent means in the age of AI Equity will be back next week, so stay tuned! Equity is TechCrunch's flagship podcast, produced by Theresa Loconsolo, and posts every Wednesday and Friday. Subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify and all the casts. You also can follow Equity on X and Threads, at @EquityPod.
Tahawul Tech
12 hours ago
- Business
- Tahawul Tech
OpenAI enters into lucrative deal with U.S. government
OpenAI recently secured a $200 million contract with the US Department of Defence (DoD) to deploy AI tools across administrative functions, part of an initiative to integrate AI tech within government operations. In a statement, the company explained it is launching the OpenAI for Government initiative to provide AI expertise to public servants and support the US government in deploying the technology for the public good. The overriding aim of its work is to enhance the capabilities of government workers, helping to cut down on red tape and paperwork. Its first partnership under the new initiative will be a pilot programme with the DoD through its Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office. It will help identify and prototype how frontier AI could transform administrative operations including improving how US military members and their families access healthcare, streamlining programme and data acquisition, and supporting proactive cyber defence. OpenAI added the initiative consolidates its existing government projects under one area, including the development of a version of ChatGPT for government workers, along with its work with space agency NASA and the Air Force Research Laboratory. Through the initiative, OpenAI will offer US federal, state and local governments access to its most advanced ChatGPT models, custom set-ups for national security, hands on support and an insight into future AI advancements. OpenAI added it is just getting started and is looking forward to helping US government leaders 'harness AI to better serve the public'. Source: Mobile World Live Image Credit: Stock Image/OpenAI
West Australian
a day ago
- Business
- West Australian
Everest-US Defence partnership opens funding for WA rubidium play
Everest Metals has secured a seat at a high-level table after being accepted onto the United States Department of Defence's (DoD) Defence Industrial Base Consortium, thanks to its Mt Edon rubidium project in Western Australia's Mid West region. Consortium membership will support Everest's research to advance its high-grade Mt Edon rubidium processing technology as the company bids to become Australia's first rubidium supplier. The consortium is managed by US-based Advanced Technology International. Membership opens the door to prototyping opportunities, streamlined contracts and direct collaboration with US defence initiatives. Management is confident Everest will gain access to non-dilutive DoD funding through its membership, which would allow it to capitalise on a red-hot critical minerals market and future strategic US alliances. The company says the development will supercharge Mt Edon, where a maiden inferred resource of 3.6 million tonnes at 0.22 per cent rubidium oxide holds more than 7900t of the scarce critical mineral. The real kicker for Everest is not the resource, but its patented direct rubidium extraction (DRE) technology, which has a staggering 97 per cent recovery rate. The company believes it can refine its technology with partners Edith Cowan University and the CSIRO, through a commercial pilot plant planned for next year. Everest has grant applications in with the Minerals Research Institute of Western Australia, which, added to consortium funding, gives management the confidence to scale up its pilot plant vision while reducing any reliance on shareholder capital. Rubidium is fetching a hefty US$1170 (A$1810) per kilogram for carbonate and is a linchpin for defence, aerospace and high-tech applications, including in night vision imaging, atomic clocks and medical sedatives. With global demand projected to soar from US$4.46 billion (A$6.9B) in 2023 to US$7.2B by 2032 and China's grip on supply tightening, Everest's Mt Edon project could be perfectly timed to meet US calls for a secure, Western-aligned rubidium source. The project's granted mining lease in the Paynes Find Greenstone Belt, 420 kilometres northeast of Perth, means the company has cleared another operational hurdle. Everest says shallow pegmatites start from surface at Mt Edon and are primed for an open-pit mining scenario. With a high-grade resource, proven extraction technology and a direct line to US defence priority spending, Everest is shaping up as a critical minerals frontrunner. The company will now gear up for its pilot plant development and further testwork, as it sorts through an array of non-dilutive funding opportunities in the global critical minerals landscape. Is your ASX-listed company doing something interesting? Contact:
Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Army soldiers from Minnesota, Michigan perish in separate Middle East incidents
Two U.S. Army soldiers deployed in the Middle East in support of the campaign against ISIS died this week in separate incidents that were not combat-related. The Department of Defense (DoD) on Wednesday confirmed the deaths of two soldiers supporting Operation Inherent Resolve. Sgt. 1st Class Emmett Wilfred Goodridge Jr., 40, of Roseville, Minnesota, died Sunday in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, as a result of an incident that was not combat-related, according to the DoD. Goodridge was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, New York. The incident is under investigation, officials said. Three days later, Staff Sgt. Saul Fabian Gonzalez, 26, of Pullman, Michigan, died in Erbil, Iraq, in a separate incident that was not combat-related, according to the DoD. Gonzalez was assigned to D Troop, 2nd Squadron, 101st Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The second incident also remains under investigation, officials said. No further details about the incidents were immediately released. The deaths come days after President Donald Trump honored the U.S. Army for its 250th anniversary on Saturday. The DoD did not immediately respond to further inquiries from Fox News Digital. The Army did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for service photos.
Memri
2 days ago
- Politics
- Memri
Why Is Trump Failing In Russia?
Roughly five months into his second presidency, U.S. President Donald Trump has had little success in reaching the peace between Russia and Ukraine that he has been constantly declaring that his administration would deliver in days rather than weeks.[1] Moreover, the world is now considering the U.S. President to be Russian President Vladimir Putin's puppet, and the Russian public is not the only one that has joked that a poster that the DoD released on Flag Day features just one American flag while appearing to feature two Russian flags beside the three stars (see image below).[2] So why has there been no breakthrough in sight when it comes to the largest military conflict in Europe? I would argue that there are two main reasons for that: the lack of general strategy and the looming shortcomings in tactical issues. (Source: X) Russians joked about the DoD Flag Day poster featuring just one American flag while appearing to feature two Russian flags, one on either side of the three stars. "The Brest-Litovsk Solution" Beginning with strategy, it is expected that it is possible to assess all the risks that the conflict poses and act accordingly. I might be wrong, but for three years so far, two of the most crucial issues that have shaped the Western behaviour were concerns over a Russian nuclear strike and a consequent feeling that Russia cannot be defeated militarily, both of which resulted in calls to not let Ukraine lose and in doing nothing to bring Russia down.[3] Such an approach seems to dominate the current agenda as well, while all the words about the financial burden of assisting Ukraine, or the preoccupation with China, or other matters, look like mere excuses. But if this is the case, one should be ready to accept a huge part of Putin's claims to have frozen the conflict and to prepare for the next stage of the conflict by trying to make it as remote as possible while turning Ukraine into a real stronghold on the West's Eastern border. Since 2014, when the Russians began their offensive in Eastern Ukraine, I have been a strong advocate of an option I used to call "the Brest-Litovsk solution": the Ukrainian leadership would do better if it recognized "LNR-DNR's" independence, allowed Russia to become preoccupied with these regions' reconstruction, and used its time for incorporation into NATO and the EU.[4] On its part, the West should have been trying to support Ukraine and Russia's other neighbours to reinforce its own strategic defense and try to "outlive" Putin with the least possible losses, since there is no chance for changing his worldview and so containment looks like the only option.[5] After Putin dies, a new agenda may be discussed; while he is alive, only idiots can hope for either reconciliation or lasting peace. Today, the situation differs quite seriously from that of 2014, but not entirely. Putin claims not Crimea and two other Ukrainian regions, but Crimea and four territories.[6] Yet, the West's main goal should remain the same as it was before – to keep Ukraine as a sovereign nation, hostile to Russia, capable of self-defense, and integrated into Euro-Atlantic alliances. Therefore, the best strategy for Trump would be to strike a deal with Russia granting it the territories Putin wants, but securing Ukraine's – as well as Europe's (Baltic states included) – defense (and so dismissing any claims for Ukraine's neutrality or "de-Nazification"). Trump is free from any earlier obligations, so he can maneuver as widely as he wants. Russia, on its side, faces many challenges, and as it would be still considered an aggressor nation after detaching part of Ukraine, all the existing sanctions should stay in force, making the rest of Putin's years in the Kremlin a kind of a nightmare as as he faces challenges from a weakening economy, aging population, and over a million angry, wounded, and poor retired mercenaries who had served in Ukraine. After he dies and the regime collapses, everything might be renegotiated as a precondition for Russia's "return to the world." No Bigger Mistake Than Considering Putin A Partner Moreover, even while some concessions can (and should) be made, Russia has still to be considered an enemy, not a partner – this looks absolutely essential for the new "grand strategy" the West should follow. Russia may win or lose tactically, but no bigger mistake can be made than considering Putin a partner with whom a lasting reciprocal deal can be made. I have argued many times that Putin is now much less reliable for the West than Adolf Hitler was in 1938.[7] Hitler, after all, did not sign any agreements on Czechoslovakia in 1920 that he later wished to break, while Putin had personally guaranteed Ukraine's borders which he had no intention of respecting. Therefore, the overall strategy should aim at replacing the "hot war" Ukraine is fighting against Russia with a "cold war" the entire West wages against Moscow, and on prevailing in this new "cold war" in the way the previous one was won. Ukraine may lose some territories but no one should pretend it would be a price for peace or for a "return to normal," just a prelude for a new, more serious and prolonged, showdown. I could hardly propose anything else this time. But this was not Trump's choice. Instead, he made bet on some tactical issues based on a general feeling Russia might be allowed to rejoin a community of decent nations while still being ruled by Putin. I have no idea why he believes this may change Putin's behaviour – it seems to me that all the former cases of "resets" with the Kremlin have not been too successful (and, to add, the same efforts on other "fronts," like that in North Korea during Trump's first administration, also yielded few results). President Putin, to my mind, takes any readiness for negotiating as a proof of weakness – he recently publicly proclaimed that "only cowards pay their debts"[8] (saying this, I should add, while commenting on the expropriation of the Russian business built by McDonald's, a respected U.S. corporation). However, Trump seemingly does not want to find out what is on the Kremlin dictator's mind or even to listen to what he openly proclaims. I may assume that Trump sincerely wants to reach a peace deal and therefore cannot understand why Putin does not care about thousands of his soldiers killed every week in Ukraine.[9] Yet, this time it is not all about understanding Putin's thoughts but rather about reacting to his actions, all of which reflect his unwillingness to compromise. If compromise is not an option, the biggest mistake one may make is to be inconsistent – but this is what Trump is championing almost daily. The tale of "two weeks" he is constantly offering to Putin to make a final decision about the Ukrainian war has already turned into a meme,[10] but it seems that the American leader has nothing more to offer. He reiterates that he wants to make "deals" with Russia, but he forgets that any commercial contract – of offer, or derivative – has its expiration limit without which it loses all its appeal. To trade oil futures with no delivery date makes little sense, but it is precisely the game Trump is now playing with the Kremlin (and not only with the Kremlin – it seems to have become his new way of doing politics vis-à-vis all prospective partners). There is another crucial point that may help to explain why Trump is failing in his talks with Putin. For some unknown (and unexplainable) reasons he believes in trading certain political issues for financial and economic ones. He thinks that Putin might be interested in returning to "business as usual" so fiercely that he might exchange such chances for some geopolitical concessions, but this is not the case: Putin and his clique in fact own Russia and can command all its money and resources, so they have no need to adapt to anyone, whatever she or he may promise in the economic field. The story of sanctions that the West has been imposing on Russia for years shows that the Kremlin is resistant to any hardships that the Russian economy, businesses, or people may encounter. I am therefore extremely skeptical of any trade-offs. On the contrary, Trump's belief in pacifying Putin financially undermines all and every collective action that might be taken by the Western world (these days it was reported that the U.S. is expected to block the proposed lowering on the so-called "oil price cap" on Russian hydrocarbons). I am not a sanctions enthusiast, after all,[11] but I would argue that such attempts cannot influence Putin: He will only, receiving more proof that the Western powers are divided over their Russia policy, become more confident. The economic track should not be seen as a promising option since the Kremlin (as well as the Russian oligarchs) possess such deep distrust in the West that after all that has happened in recent years the Russian elites will not trade any "geopolitical" aspirations for financial benefits or economic promises on part of the U.S., however juicy they might look. Looking At Trump's Actions So, what may one expect from/suggest for the coming months? Looking at Trump's actions, I predict that he will keep things going as they are now: allowing Russia to continue its war while assuring that Putin continues some negotiations with Kyiv concentrated on purely tactical/humanitarian issues. At the same time, he will effectively block/postpone harsh economic measures the West might introduce against Russia, and for various reasons: on the one hand, because of hopes for reconciliation with Ukraine, and, on the other, Trump might think Putin could be instrumental in talks with either Iran or China, which seems at least doubtful. The major problem with such a tactic is that it will not produce any visible results, but at the same time Ukraine, facing diminishing assistance from the U.S., may intensify its rather chaotic hits on Russian targets increasing the overall unpredictability of the ongoing war. It looks as though many dramatic things must take place to make Trump completely disillusioned with Putin, so I would not bet on this happening anytime soon. Under such circumstances, the U.S. withdrawal from any talks with Russia on Ukraine – that Trump has been using as a threat for some time – would look not at all like the worst option.[12] If that happens, such a move would reinvigorate both the Ukrainians and Europeans, with the latter realizing they must act rather than talk since war with Russia would become their own – and no one else's – business. As we in Russia used to say, "better a horrible end than an endless horror" – so the termination of the U.S. "assistance" may well result in swift changes both in Ukraine, which would focus more on development of its own defense industries than on betting on new armaments from the West, and in Europe, which would become more serious about its military buildup and containing Russia. I would not say that this looks like the best possible outcome, but it would be at least an understandable and straightforward move that would not produce catastrophic results, as it seems Putin now treats the war with Ukraine more as a continuous enterprise rather than a strategic operation that possesses some distinctive and achievable ends. Trump's current approach on Russia is unable to produce any results, so therefore, I would say, it must be either changed or abandoned, whichever looks easier for the White House... *Dr. Vladislav Inozemtsev is the MEMRI Russian Media Studies Project Special Advisor, and founder and director of the Moscow-based Center for Post-Industrial Studies.
