Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brenton Griffin, Academic Status in the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University

Russell Marion Nelson Sr, prophet and leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has died aged 101.

Nelson was married to Dantzel White from 1945 until her passing in 2005. As of his 100th birthday, he had ten children, 57 grandchildren, and more than 167 great-grandchildren.

Following Dantzel’s passing, Nelson married Wendy Watson in 2009. Wendy has survived her husband.

Early life and medicine

Nelson was born in Salt Lake City, Utah on September 9 1924, into a faithful family of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He received his medical degree from the University of Utah in 1947. He served in the United States Army Medical Corps during the Korean War, before completing a PhD at the University of Minnesota in 1954. In 1955, he became a faculty member at the University of Utah School of Medicine.

Nelson was attached to various medical societies throughout his successful career, including as President of the Society for Vascular Surgery in 1975. He also had a score of ecclesiastical positions within the Church, which ran parallel to his career.

In 1984, aged 59, he was called to be an apostle, after which he was involved with the church’s ministry full time. In Mormon cosmology, apostles are seen as being in direct communication with God, and are to guide the church until the second coming of Jesus Christ, as laid out in the Latter-day Saint scripture.

Nelson helped broaden the church’s global reach, supervising its expansion across Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

---

Read more:
Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with 2 secretive new temples planned for Australia

---

In 2018, he was ordained as the prophet, seer and revelator of the church following the death of Thomas S. Monson. For Latter-day Saints, the prophet is the senior apostle who holds the “keys of the Kingdom of God on earth”. The prophet is the authority to bring salvation to those willing to accept the church’s doctrines and rituals.

Nelson remained in this position until his death.

A difficult legacy

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will remember Nelson for his role in expanding the church globally, as he was responsible for the construction of various temples. These sacred sites are used exclusively by select, faithful Latter-day Saints – so more temples in more places means easier access for these church members.

Nelson repealed a series of controversial church doctrines. In 2019, he overturned a ban that prevented the children of LGBTQIA+ parents from getting a baptism, and the labelling of LGBTQIA+ Latter-day Saints as apostates.

It was also under Nelson the church released its so-called “Restoration Proclomation”, the sixth proclamation released in the church’s history.

Nelson read the proclamation at the church’s 2020 biannual conference, which coincided with the bicentennial anniversary of Mormonism founder Joseph Smith’s
First Vision, in which Smith claimed to have seen God and Jesus Christ as physical manifestations.

The Restoration Proclamation affirmed the importance of Smith in the “restoration” of the gospel, and promised the church “goes forward through continuing revelation”. It also invited “all to know” of the church’s “divinity and of its purpose to prepare the world for the promised second coming [of Christ]”.

At the same time, several controversies engulfed the church during Nelson’s leadership. These included accusations of the misuse of church finances, representations of historical church-sanctioned violence in popular culture, the naming of the church and church members in various government and media reports on alleged child sexual abuse, and criticism of the church’s aggressive real estate expansion (which included buying agricultural holdings throughout the US and Australia).

Topping all of this off is an increasingly loud ex-Mormon community.

Succession and schism in the church

Ever since the church was established in 1830, there has been a tension between its centralised ecclesiastical nature, and its more charismatic, individualistic undertones.

Mormonism emerged out of an anti-establishment fervour in early 19th-century America. This was also reflected in other restorationist movements such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians.

Part of the religion’s foundational ethos was that individuals can and must have personal relationships with God, and that religious authorities can be corrupted – even those connected to the church. This democratisation of spirituality, which was crucial for the church’s initial successes, has since led to numerous schisms among believers.

The largest of these came after the death of founder Joseph Smith in 1844. Thousands of Latter-day Saints claimed the prophethood should remain within the Smith family, and formed the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They have since renamed themselves as the Community of Christ and are still active today.

Further splinters emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century, when scores of “fundamentalist” branches fractured from the church following the 1890 decision to end polygamy.

Warren Jeffs is the leader of the largest of these polygamous sects, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jeffs was found guilty of child sexual abuse in 2011 and is incarcerated for life.

Who will be the next prophet be?

Unlike other Christian religions, there is no discussion or casting of votes when it comes to choosing the next prophet of the church. The title will automatically go to the most “senior apostle”, who in this case is Dallin H. Oaks.

Before being called to apostleship, Oaks was a lawyer, legal educator, Utah Supreme Court Justice, and president of the church-owned Brigham Young University. He is 93 years old, and has been an apostle since 1984.

Oaks will be set apart as prophet by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and sustained by the church’s membership at the next biannual General Conference.

Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His current research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the nineteenth century to present.

– ref. Mormon leader Russell Nelson has died aged 101. What’s next for the church? – https://theconversation.com/mormon-leader-russell-nelson-has-died-aged-101-whats-next-for-the-church-263276

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Daniel, Associate Lecturer in Communication, Western Sydney University

With Spinal Tap II: The End Continues hitting cinemas, now is the perfect moment to revisit its precursor, one of most influential and hilarious comedy films ever made, 1984’s This Is Spinal Tap.

Directed by Rob Reiner and co-written by Reiner and the stars of the film, Christopher Guest (as Nigel Tufnel), Michael McKean (David St. Hubbins) and Harry Shearer (Derek Smalls), the mockumentary film follows a fictional British heavy metal band on a disastrous tour of the United States.

As audiences dwindle, equipment fails and egos clash, the band’s decline satirises rock’n’roll excess and the absurdities of the music industry.

Widely acknowledged as a cult classic, the film codified the “straight-faced” style of mockumentary that became central to modern comedies such as The Office and Modern Family.

Its dry and absurdist tone, handheld camerawork, faux interview format and largely improvised dialogue were inspirational for many contemporary comedy creators, including Ben Stiller, Mike Schur and Ricky Gervais. It also established a tone and style Guest would return to throughout his filmmaking career, in movies such as Waiting For Guffman (1996), Best In Show (2000) and A Mighty Wind (2003).

The band which could exist

Beyond pure nostalgia and the legacy of the mockumentary style, This Is Spinal Tap remains a cult favourite because of the clever and farcical way it skewers and satirises rock excess.

As Roger Ebert stated, although the band does not exist,

the best thing about this film is that it could. The music, the staging, the special effects, the backstage feuding and the pseudo-profound philosophizing are right out of a hundred other rock groups and a dozen other documentaries about rock.

In the early 1980s, MTV was on the rise. Rock tour documentaries from bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and The Band established new conventions of “rock reality” in films such as The Song Remains The Same (1976), Black and Blue (1980) and The Last Waltz (1978). The culture of excess surrounding some of these artists provided fertile ground for parody.

Ego clashes, overblown stage shows and catastrophic tours were commonplace. Spinal Tap’s deadpan mockumentary style was both a timely satire, and an authentic cultural commentary.

The brilliance of the film goes beyond its ribald satire. Of vital importance is the skilful musicianship of the cast. Even if they are a joke, Spinal Tap can play. The great rock riffs sustain the silliness of the lyrics in songs like Sex Farm and Big Bottom.

In addition, Guest and McKean slyly navigate a bromance at the heart of the film between their characters, Nigel and David.

When David’s girlfriend, Jeanine (June Chadwick) arrives to join the tour, things really go off the rails, leading to an acrimonious breakup between the bandmates.

Their reunion at the film’s conclusion reveals that the film is truly a love story between two vain yet endearing buffoons.

Going to 11

Moments such as Nigel boasting about his amplifier going “to 11”, Derek’s airport security incident, the band getting lost on the way to the stage, and the 18-inch (instead of 18-foot) Stonehenge stage prop have become iconic. But there are so many great gags on the periphery, layered through the largely improvised dialogue.

A personal favourite occurs during an early band interview. Reflecting on a series of strange deaths that have afflicted Spinal Tap’s drummers throughout the years, and acknowledging that their first drummer died in “a bizarre gardening accident”, Tufnel states “the authorities said best leave it unsolved really”.

There are also subtle visual jokes embedded through the film: the sudden emergence of cold sores for each band member in the early stages of the tour (at roughly the same time the band’s groupies enter the frame); the band being second billed behind an Amusement Park Puppet Show as the tour falls apart; Nigel needing to quickly tune the violin he’s using to augment an overblown guitar solo.

Online lists such as Cracked’s “50 funniest moments in This Is Spinal Tap” demonstrate the sheer volume of funny moments.

Modern audiences would no doubt recognise the film’s style being mimicked in contemporary works such as The Office, Parks and Recreation, Summer Heights High and What We Do in the Shadows.

Its influence has been directly acknowledged in the lead-up to the release of the sequel by creators who owe a debt to its clever format.

Spinal Tap II: The End Continues reunites Tufnel, St. Hubbins and Smalls, now estranged, 41 years after the original film.

They are reluctantly coming back together for one final concert they are legally bound to perform. Documentarian Marty Di Bergi (Reiner) returns to showcase their legacy, modern mishaps and the realities of being an ageing rocker.

It is an apt sequel in a world where legacy bands and artists such as The Rolling Stones, Springsteen and McCartney are still performing in their 70s and 80s.

The sequel is not just a reunion gig. It is a reminder of why the original remains one of the sharpest and most influential comedies ever made – and one well worth a revisit.

Adam Daniel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why This Is Spinal Tap remains the funniest rock satire ever made – https://theconversation.com/why-this-is-spinal-tap-remains-the-funniest-rock-satire-ever-made-264591

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Keith Brown, Professor of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University

In Serbia, there is a word for a form of stubbornness that sees someone act out of spite or defiance rather than yield to the will of others: “inat.”

It’s something Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić is showing remarkable levels of right now.

For almost a year, anti-government protests have roiled the Balkan nation. They intensified over summer 2025, culminating in angry clashes between students and police in August and September.

But Vučić has stood firm in the face of growing calls for his resignation. In fact, as scholars of politics and history in Southeast Europe, we have watched Vučić take Serbia even further down an authoritarian path. In so doing, he is drawing from the well-worn playbook of autocratic leaders past and present – not least his former boss Slobodan Milošević and Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader Vučić openly admires.

Yet, while Vučić can draw on support from Putin and fellow authoritarians overseas, he is losing legitimacy at home. Opposing him is a new generation of civic activists who have won the Serbian public’s backing by reclaiming “inat” as force for positive change.

Unmoved by a movement

The immediate trigger for the ongoing unrest came in November 2024 with the deadly collapse of a train station canopy in Novi Sad, a city in northern Serbia.

Renovated with funding from China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the canopy was one of many projects touted by Vučić’s government as evidence of its success in attracting foreign investment. The accident’s 16 deaths, however, served to sharpen questions about corruption, failures of oversight and government accountability.

Student protests gathered momentum through winter and into spring. One demonstration, on March 15, saw more than 300,000 people turn out in Belgrade. Activists have also employed civil disobedience tactics, like staging pop-up roadblocks in Serbian cities, to maintain pressure on the government.

But Vučić has remained obdurate. On Sept. 1, while large crowds gathered in Belgrade and other Serbian cities, Vučić joined Putin and other leaders critical of Western-style democracy at a large military parade in Beijing.

Then on Sept. 20, Vučić staged his own show of strength, with soldiers and tanks taking part in a military parade in Belgrade as Russian-bought MiG-29 fighter planes flew overhead.

From reform to repression

Vučić’s reaction to the protests and his cozying up to leaders of Russia and China reveal how the Serbian leader’s politics have changed.

He was once perceived as a pro-European reformer. Indeed, Vučić and his Serbian Progressive Party campaigned on a pro-European Union platform in the 2012 election that brought them to power.

First serving as deputy prime minister before becoming prime minister in 2014, Vučić won plaudits for seeking to resolve long-standing tensions over Kosovo’s status as a sovereign country. At that time, it was Vučić who led his country’s negotiations with the EU over a normalization of relations between Serbia and its former province.

Vučić also showed willingness to improve Serbia’s ties with neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina. Whereas many Serbian citizens still felt primary affinity for the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska, whose armed forces committed genocide at Srebrenica in 1995, Vučić risked domestic censure when, in 2015, he labeled that massacre of Bosniak men and boys by Serbian paramilitaries a “monstrous crime.” Vučić also showed up at Srebrenica to pay his respects to the victims, despite local hostility.

Those diplomatic gestures, along with his success in attracting foreign investment, won Vučić international praise as an effective reformer. Serbian voters, likewise, acknowledged the economic stability and the country’s improved reputation.

Backtracking on record

Those assessments started to change in earnest, however, after Vučić secured election as president in 2017. Critics say that he has leveraged his position to amass power and influence, mimicking methods familiar to those living under authoritarian-leaning governments in Hungary and Russia.

Meanwhile, the U.K.’s Brexit vote in 2016, the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and then the global disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic all changed the dynamics of the international community, reducing outside pressure that had advanced democratic norms.

What followed in Serbia was backsliding on democracy. Serbia’s once-vibrant media now operates as government cheerleader. Independent journalism outlets have faced harassment, censorship and lawsuits as part of a state-sponsored campaign of censorship.

Meanwhile, on the diplomatic front, Vučić changed his tune on Kosovo. He now pledges to protect the interests of the breakaway province’s Serbs and portrays Kosovo’s Albanian leader, Albin Kurti, as the obstacle to any normalization deal.

On Bosnia-Herzegovina, Vučić has also backtracked, expressing support for long-time Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik – who has been barred from office by the country’s constitutional court, but defies that ruling.

To Serbian audiences, Vučiċ accuses the EU of duplicity and anti-Serbian prejudice. Meanwhile, he smears the student-led movement as a Western-led “color revolution” aimed at politically motivated regime change. Critics are “fascists” and “foreign mercenaries.”

Europe gets wise to Vučiċ

In all this, Vučiċ has drawn on Kremlin talking points and an authoritarian playbook to distract attention away from his government’s practices. He and his allies cast the current protests not as a movement built on grassroots mobilization, but as the result of meddling by foreign agents.

In taking this authoritarian turn, Vučić invites critics to see parallels with Milošević, under whom the current president served in the 1990s as minister of information. Milošević, who died while on trial for war crimes, did much to inflame Serbian nationalism in the early 1990s and presided over the bloody wars in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. After Milošević’s ouster in the Bulldozer Revolution of 2000, Vučić spent a decade in opposition before returning to government in 2012.

And while European diplomats were for many years eager to court Vučić, even tolerating hedging tactics that saw Serbia expand ties with Russia and China, that changed amid the president’s response to months of protest.

In March, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted on the social platform X that Serbia “needs to deliver on EU reforms, in particular to take decisive steps towards media freedom, the fight against corruption and the electoral reform.”

Marta Kos, European Commissioner for Enlargement, delivered blunter assessment six months later, noting in a European Parliament debate the “wave of violence and continuous use of force against protesters in Serbia.”

Such criticism has seen Vučić turn increasingly to China, Russia and also to the Trump administration, with Donald Trump Jr.’s visit to Serbia in March as emblematic of the warming ties between Washington and Belgrade.

The ‘inat’ of the Serbian people

Vučić has spent over a decade directing a political spectacle in which he presents himself as the one force capable of saving Serbia. And for the better part of the past year, he has attempted to paper over the cracks in his rule through a strategy of imposing increasingly authoritarian measures at home while seeking support from like-minded regimes abroad.

But the fact that this ploy has not extinguished the still ongoing anti-government protests suggests it may be a failing tactic.

And like Milošević in the late 1990s, Vučić seems to have underestimated the force of “inat” of the Serbian people. The Bulldozer Revolution that ousted Milošević was comprised of Serbs from a wide range of backgrounds, all determined to bring down an unpopular autocrat who put his own political survival above the needs of citizens.

They did so through grassroots mobilization and shared recognition that the true obstacle to prosperity was not foreign conspiracy, but Milošević himself. For all his individual stubbornness and spite, Milošević could not match the resilience and determination of Serbia’s citizens.

That same energy appears to be in the streets of Belgrade now, sustained by a new generation of citizens standing firm against the tactic of a different autocratic leader.

Keith Brown receives funding from the Finland Fulbright Foundation, and directs a Center that until recently has received funds from the US Department of State Title VIII program, the US Department of Education Title VI program, and the US Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia.

Hanna Begić does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Serbia’s Aleksandar Vučić clings to power – but protests highlight the danger of stubborn leadership – https://theconversation.com/serbias-aleksandar-vucic-clings-to-power-but-protests-highlight-the-danger-of-stubborn-leadership-245878

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago

There seems to be a mismatch between what a UN inquiry recently described as genocide in Gaza and New Zealand’s announcement at the United Nations on Saturday that it will not yet join 157 other countries in recognising a Palestinian state.

The government decision, relayed by Foreign Minister Winston Peters at the UN General Assembly, was welcomed by Israel’s ambassador to New Zealand, who claimed recognition of a Palestinian state legitimises Hamas – a designated terrorist organisation.

On the other hand, former Labour prime minister Helen Clark said, “New Zealand has placed itself very much on the wrong side of history”. She said the government’s position overall was “confusing”.

In practice, the stance of the National-led coalition has certainly been ambiguous. It has called for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, reiterated its support for a two-state solution, and repeatedly said recognition of a Palestinian state is a question of “when not if”.

However, in January 2024, it also agreed to a small Defence Force deployment as part of a United States-led coalition against Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, despite the US using its Security Council veto to prevent a ceasefire in Gaza.

Equally striking was the government’s relative silence on President Donald Trump’s proposal in February this year to extinguish the prospect of a two-state solution by taking ownership of Gaza and effectively evicting two million Palestinian residents from the territory.

It also had little to say about the US-Israeli venture to start the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in late May, a controversial move that sidelined the UN in aid distribution and has led to the killing of more than 1,000 Palestinians while seeking food.

And then in June, along with the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Norway, the government imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar ben Gvir for “inciting extremist violence” against Palestinians.

That decision was strongly criticised by the Trump administration, but it seemed to signal the New Zealand position (along with that of its close allies) was hardening.

In August, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon declared Israel’s military assault on Gaza City was “utterly unacceptable”, and said Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “lost the plot”.

None of which, we now know, was enough to convince the government to follow other liberal democracies such as Australia, Canada, the UK, France and Portugal in recognising Palestinian statehood.

NZ’s reputation on the line

The political reasoning, according to Peters, is that while Hamas remains the de facto government of Gaza and “with a war raging”, there is no viable Palestinian state to recognise.

According to the prime minister, this was a “balanced” decision and consistent with an independent foreign policy. But it can also be argued the approach rests on some shaky assumptions.

While Israel has not been able to destroy Hamas, nor has Hamas been able to stop Gaza being reduced to piles of rubble. According to the Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich, such destruction has “no precedent globally. And the world isn’t stopping us.”

By presenting Hamas as an obstacle to the recognition process, the government also seems to be overlooking the governance role the internationally recognised Palestinian Authority in the West Bank could play in Gaza in a future Palestinian state.

Netanyahu has consistently opposed any such role for the Palestinian Authority, a position New Zealand now seems to tacitly accept.

Peters has described the situation in Gaza as “simply intolerable”. If that’s the case, it has been allowed to happen without New Zealand’s recognition of a Palestinian state. So, how does delaying recognition improve things?

After all, Netanyahu has opposed the concept of a two-state solution since the mid-1990s. And his far-right coalition government has pledged to take full control of Gaza and annex the West Bank – in complete violation of international law and numerous UN resolutions.

It is the belated realisation by a number of democracies that Netanyahu will never accept a Palestinian state that has prompted the latest flurry of statehood recognition, before Israel’s attempt to absorb the occupied territories is completed.

Those countries that have now recognised a Palestinian state will have also weighed up the factors for and against doing so. But they have clearly chosen to make a moral and legal stand – albeit symbolic – on the Palestinian right of political self-determination.

By not joining them, there is a real risk New Zealand will be seen as aligning with those states – Israel and the US – that bear significant responsibility for prolonging the catastrophic conflict in Gaza.

If this perception is widely shared, New Zealand’s hard-won reputation as a state that firmly upholds an international rules-based order could be dealt a major blow.

Robert G. Patman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. By not recognising a Palestinian state, NZ puts its own hard-won reputation on the line – https://theconversation.com/by-not-recognising-a-palestinian-state-nz-puts-its-own-hard-won-reputation-on-the-line-266224

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Daniel Thomas, Honorary Lecturer in Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Three million years ago, an extinct relative of todays’s great penguins – emperors and kings – lived in Aotearoa New Zealand.

We know this because our new study describes a spectacular fossilised skull of a great penguin found on the Taranaki coast.

Overall, it is 31% longer than the skull of an emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri), which can be more than a metre tall and weigh upwards of 35 kilograms.

Compared to emperor penguins, however, the Taranaki great penguin had a much stronger and longer beak. It probably looked more like a king penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus), only much bigger.

At the time, the world was warmer than today. But when the climate cooled, this penguin vanished.

We argue the cold wasn’t to blame because crested and little penguins in New Zealand weathered the same change and remained. Great penguins shifted south and today live in the frozen wastes of Antarctica. So what drove their ancient relative to extinction?

The sediments that now form beach-side cliffs in South Taranaki were deposited at a time when global temperatures were about 3°C above those of the pre-industrial era. Fossils from this period are transforming our understanding of how biodiversity might respond to rising temperatures.

For example, Aotearoa was home to box fish and monk seals, both of which are still (sub)tropical species today. In a strange contradiction, they coexisted with great penguins – now only found in much colder climates – in ancient New Zealand.

The northernmost breeding colonies of king penguins today are around latitude 46.1°S in the subantarctic Crozet Islands, where seawater temperatures reach 3-10°C. From there, it only gets colder towards the higher latitudes where emperor penguins live.

Three million years ago, Aotearoa’s great penguins extended as far north as 40.5°S, where South Taranaki was located then. They foraged in waters that were 20°C, much warmer than their relatives experience today.

This balmy existence ended with the Pleistocene ice ages around 2.58 million years ago. Ice extent and sea level shifted back and forward as temperatures fluctuated and ultimately ratcheted downwards. But why would such cooling eradicate giant penguins, which thrive under polar conditions today, from New Zealand?

Giant aerial predators

Fossil evidence for giant penguins in Aotearoa is limited and the exact reasons for their demise remain unclear. Even so, their sheer presence suggests they were less constrained by sea surface temperatures than previously thought. Another mechanism must be at play.

Up until about 500 years ago, Aotearoa was the hunting ground of the giant Haast’s eagle and the huge Forbes’ harrier. These were big raptors. They included large birds like moa in their diet. Their ancestors arrived from Australia inside the last three million years.

Based on what we see with living great penguins, the Taranaki great penguin almost certainly formed large exposed colonies along the coast. These could have been easy targets for a giant eagle or harrier hunting from the air.

By contrast, the smaller penguins still found in Aotearoa today have more cryptic breeding behaviour. They nest in burrows, natural crevices and dense vegetation, and tend to cross beaches at night, which may have helped them avoid aerial predators.

Predation on land is just one hypothesis, though, to help explain why these penguins became extinct in the region while others survived. Other possibilities include changes in the marine environment.

We know that reduced food availability can be devastating for penguins, but it is challenging to see why this would single out the great penguins.

Importantly, our study provides new insight into the habitat tolerances of great penguins. Both king and emperor penguins today can withstand temperatures up to 20°C higher than those they usually forage in.

Three million years ago, their relative experienced such warmth. As the world continues to warm, we need to remember that the geographic range of a species can change as circumstances change.

The marine ecosystem of Aotearoa will move into the habitable zone of many new species, making investigations of the last warm period more important than ever before.

---

We would like to acknowledge our research co-author Dan Ksepka from The Bruce Museum, Kerr Sharpe-Young for discovering the fossil, and Ngāti Ruanui and Ngāruahine for supporting the collection and research of fossils from their rohe.

---

Daniel Thomas has received funding from Massey University.

Alan Tennyson and Felix Georg Marx do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Close relatives of emperor penguins lived in NZ some 3 million years ago. What caused their extinction? – https://theconversation.com/close-relatives-of-emperor-penguins-lived-in-nz-some-3-million-years-ago-what-caused-their-extinction-265585

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Fred H. Lawson, Professor of Government Emeritus, Northeastern University

President Donald Trump chided the United Nations on Sept. 23, 2025, for failing to resolve dangerous international conflicts around the world. “All they seem to do,” he groused during his address to the General Assembly in New York, “is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words, and empty words don’t solve war.”

In contrast, Trump, by his own estimation, has ended a half-dozen serious international conflicts. Among them is the long-standing dispute over the Nile River waters that flared up when Ethiopia proposed to build a massive dam over the Blue Nile, threatening the water supply of Egypt and Sudan.

As an international relations scholar who has studied this dispute, however, I find it hard to see how Trump’s interventions have brought it any closer to a resolution. In fact, they most likely made things worse.

The source of the dispute

Nile River water is essential to agriculture and public sanitation in both Egypt and Sudan. Distribution of that water has been regulated by an agreement drawn up in 1959 guaranteeing Egypt and Sudan most of the output of the Nile River basin. A body of international law also enjoins upstream nations – such as Ethiopia – against manipulating the cross-border flow of rivers in ways that harm downstream countries.

Ethiopia nonetheless declared in 2011 that it had the right to exploit any water resources that originate inside its borders. It further insisted that constructing an electricity-generating dam across the Blue Nile would provide cheap power to both impoverished Ethiopians and neighboring countries.

Egypt and Sudan immediately protested on the grounds that the project would inflict severe damage on their populations and implored international organizations and external powers to intervene.

Ambiguous wording

Trump waded into the Nile dispute at the urging of Egypt. Cairo approached Washington to mediate in late October 2019, as Ethiopia was ramping up construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam that would restrict the flow of the Blue Nile. After speaking personally with Egypt President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, Trump agreed to become directly involved.

He and then-Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin invited the foreign ministers of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia to Washington for talks.

With the opening session of the ensuing November 2019 meeting still ongoing, Trump tweeted: “The meeting went well and discussions will continue during the day!”

The talks, however, ended with no progress being made. Instead, all four parties, along with representatives of the World Bank, agreed to confer a dozen more times over the next three months to hash out technical matters.

At these subsequent meetings, Egypt and Ethiopia haggled over definitions and measurement criteria concerning the dam’s possible impact. Mnuchin and his staff largely stood aside, although they reportedly expressed sympathy for Addis Ababa’s insistence that matters concerning the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam be kept separate from questions concerning water management in the Nile Basin as a whole.

More importantly, U.S. representatives allowed imprecise wording to slip into the
statement released at the close of the December 2019 meeting.

The statement mandated that “the implementation of these technical rules and guidelines for the filling and operation of the dam will be undertaken by Ethiopia, and may be adjusted by the three countries.”

Cairo interpreted this to mean that all regulations and procedures would be drawn up jointly; Addis Ababa believed that it enshrined Ethiopia’s right to make decisions entirely on its own.

Talks blow up

The final round of talks in January 2020 produced a prospective agreement that left Ethiopia free to start filling the huge reservoir behind the dam, and minimized the country’s obligations to assist Egypt and Sudan during drought periods.

Yet, Ethiopia dragged its feet in accepting the draft document, claiming that crucial points remained unsettled. Egypt and Sudan flatly refused to revisit problems they believed had already been addressed, but did accept an offer from U.S. Treasury officials to prepare a revised text.

In February 2020, the U.S. Treasury Department circulated an amended version, and Trump telephoned al-Sissi to express hope that “an agreement would be finalized soon.”

Ethiopia, feeling pressured by Egypt and the U.S. to endorse an incomplete text – and worried about the domestic political consequences of doing so – did not send a representative to Washington to accept the revision. Treasury officials then declared that a comprehensive settlement to the dispute had now been reached and publicly called on Addis Ababa to sign it.

Egypt’s foreign ministry issued a statement asserting that “President Trump affirmed the U.S. administration’s continued efforts” to reach an acceptable deal. But Ethiopia’s foreign minister described Washington’s abrupt declaration as “undiplomatic.”

Ethiopia stalled for another two months, then circulated a provisional agreement of its own, which Egypt and Sudan dismissed out of hand.

Washington responded with insinuations that it would withhold economic assistance from Ethiopia unless Addis Ababa signed the agreement the Treasury Department had drafted in February 2020. Meanwhile, construction on the dam proceeded, and in July Ethiopia blocked the flow of the Blue Nile to begin filling its huge reservoir.

In September 2020, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo followed through on the U.S. threat and suspended US$130 million of aid to Ethiopia. However, the suspension had no impact on negotiations.

Incensed at the continuing impasse, Trump in October 2020 remarked during a telephone call with Sudanese and Israeli diplomats that Egypt “will end up blowing up the dam.”

Ethiopian officials condemned the outburst. The prime minister’s office complained that “these threats and affronts to Ethiopian sovereignty are misguided, unproductive and clear violations of international law.” Ethiopia installed anti-aircraft batteries around the dam and declared the airspace above it a no-fly zone.

Negotiations collapsed, and they remained dormant for the next three years.

Assessing the impact of US mediation

Analysts tend to agree that Trump’s initial involvement in the Nile River dispute made a bad situation worse. His admiration for authoritarian leaders prompted him to accommodate Egypt’s al-Sissi and put U.S. credibility on the line.

Meanwhile, Trump’s contempt for the professionals in the U.S. State Department led him to sideline the diplomatic corps and entrust a complicated assignment to Mnuchin, a former financier and movie producer. And his lack of patience and blunt language disrupted the negotiations, alienating Egypt and Ethiopia alike.

Addis Ababa continues to insist that it “has no obligation to request permission from anyone to fill the Renaissance Dam.” In September 2025, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed declared that work on the dam had finished and boasted of two other dams on the Blue Nile nearing completion.

Meanwhile, Egypt has opened a large naval base on the Red Sea coast and attached
its most advanced warships to a newly created Red Sea squadron. In July 2025, Egypt Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty issued a veiled threat to use military means to settle the Nile dispute.

Despite rising tensions, and his first administration’s failure to make progress on the issue, Trump continues to point to his 2019-2020 mediation as a success.

In July 2025, he told NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that a resolution lay just around the corner. President al-Sissi once again applauded the president’s involvement and voiced hope that it would produce a “just agreement.”

Yet there is little indication that the current Trump administration is in any better position to solve the Nile River dispute than was the previous one. Since Trump’s second inauguration, experienced State Department officials have been fired or resigned, leaving sensitive diplomatic missions in the hands of private businesspeople with personal ties to the president, rather than diplomats skilled in the art of negotiating intractable disputes among sovereign states.

This development seems unlikely to budge Trump from the conviction that he has already solved the conflict over the Nile River waters – and can somehow do it again.

Fred H. Lawson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump’s dip into the Nile waters dispute didn’t settle the conflict – in fact, it may have caused more ripples – https://theconversation.com/trumps-dip-into-the-nile-waters-dispute-didnt-settle-the-conflict-in-fact-it-may-have-caused-more-ripples-263767

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Will Brehm, Associate Professor of Comparative and International Education, University of Canberra

In late July, during a visit to the National Gallery of Australia, three Buddhist bodhisattva statues caught my attention.

All three were created in the ancient Champa Kingdom that flourished from the 2nd to 19th centuries across present-day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. They were purchased by the National Gallery (NGA) in 2011, before being “repatriated” to the Kingdom of Cambodia in 2023 (and displayed in the NGA on loan).

But the Champa Kingdom bore little resemblance to Cambodia’s current borders. What does repatriation mean when the political geography of a place has entirely transformed?

As my research has shown, museums, schools and state institutions can help sanction certain versions of history, while marginalising others. The quiet presence of the bodhisattvas in a museum case embodies much larger questions about cultural heritage, political legitimacy, and who gets to define historical “truth”.

Decades of marginalisation

The decision to return the Cham artefacts to Cambodia, and to exclude Vietnam and Laos, highlights how contemporary politics shape our understanding of cultural heritage.

The Cham people are an ethnic minority in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos. In Cambodia, they have been marginalised by the ruling government’s Khmer ethno-nationalist vision of the country.

Although most Cham people today are Muslim, the statues were made between the 9th and 11th centuries during a pre-Islamic era. This period was marked by strong Hindu and Buddhist influence, and a lack of nation-state borders.

After receiving the repatriated statues in 2023, Cambodian Ambassador to Australia, Cheunboran Chanborey, said:

Indeed, putting looted artefacts to their countries of origin can have significant and positive impacts on local communities and their involvement in preserving their cultural heritage. It can foster a sense of pride, national identity and cultural continuity as artefacts hold immense value for the communities to which they belong.

But the very cultural tradition that created the bodhisattvas now finds itself sidelined in a modern nation-state claiming ownership of them.

Lootings by the Khmer Rouge

The historical context of how the Cham poeple’s artefacts were looted is crucial and disturbing.

Journalist Anne Davies’ account in the NGA’s documentation notes organised looting networks were “often headed by members of the military or the Khmer Rouge”. The Khmer Rouge was the political party that ruled Cambodia from 1975–79 under the notorious Pol Pot, carrying out a genocide of the Cham people (as well as other ethnic groups).

However, this looting actually took place in the 1990s, after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by the precursors to the present-day Cambodian People’s Party.

In other words, the looting happened on the current government’s watch. Davies writes “members of the military” of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces worked with former Khmer Rouge soldiers who continued to occupy parts of northern Cambodia, especially areas protected by thick forest.

Looted artefacts moved from the hands of former Khmer Rouge members to the Cambodian military, and eventually to international markets.

A revealing 2009 photograph shows Douglas Latchford, the antiquities dealer who sold the statues to the NGA, examining artefacts at the National Museum of Cambodia, alongside Sok An, the then-deputy prime minister of the Cambodian People’s Party. Latchford is wearing a medal signifying Cambodian knighthood, suggesting a collaborative relationship.

Parallels to other illegal trades

After retreating to border forests in 1979, the Khmer Rouge began systematic, illegal timber logging, selling the wood throughout Thailand and Cambodia. Global Witness has documented how the ruling elites in both countries have profited substantially from this trade.

The connections between logging and looting are striking: both involved illegal acts by former Khmer Rouge soldiers that ultimately enriched ruling parties.

When I saw photos of the Cambodian Ambassador to Australia formally receiving the repatriated statues in 2023, the irony was inescapable. His party, the Cambodian People’s Party, was likely complicit in the original theft.

Historical context transforms repatriation’s meaning. Rather than restoring cultural heritage to rightful guardians, these ceremonies may serve as elaborate exercises in political laundering, allowing those who profited from cultural destruction to rebrand themselves as cultural preservationists.

A new framework

The implications of this extend far beyond Cambodia. In a world where borders have been redrawn countless times, and where many cultural traditions transcend boundaries, we need new frameworks for thinking about cultural heritage.

The NGA says it followed the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 in returning the bodhisattvas to Cambodia. But the wall text for the statues acknowledges their complexity:

While the works were almost certainly created in Vietnam […] the archaeological site where they were found is in Cambodia.

The statutes were found in a different country from where they were created because the borders of those territories shifted over time.

Borders in the Mekong region of Southeast Asia have long been porous. It was only in 2012 that the last border marker between Cambodia and Vietnam was agreed on. We have also seen recent fighting over the Cambodian–Thai border.

Contested sovereignty remains a live political issue affecting how we understand cultural heritage. Is country of “origin” determined by where objects were created, or where they were discovered?

Perhaps genuine cultural justice requires acknowledging complexity rather than seeking simple solutions. Instead of asking which modern nation-state deserves these artefacts, we might ask: how can cultural heritage serve all peoples who share connections to it?

The three bodhisattvas remind us repatriation is never simply about returning objects to their “rightful” place. It’s about who gets to define that place, whose version of history becomes officially sanctioned, and whether cultural justice might sometimes serve to obscure, rather than remedy, historical injustice.

Will Brehm does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Repatriation or political theatre? How the return of stolen artefacts can distort history – https://theconversation.com/repatriation-or-political-theatre-how-the-return-of-stolen-artefacts-can-distort-history-265290

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Iliana Medina, Lecturer in Ecology, The University of Melbourne

The animal world is incredibly colourful, and behind this colour palette is a constant game of survival.

Most animals use camouflage, covering themselves in stealthy patterns to hide from predators. Others display bright and bold colours to warn potential predators they are not a good meal. This second strategy is known as aposematism or warning colouration. Although less common than camouflage, it has evolved hundreds of times in butterflies, beetles, bugs, sea slugs, poison frogs and even birds.

One long-standing question is why species use one of these strategies over the other. Is one of these strategies usually more successful? Under which specific circumstances does one strategy beat the other? Our new study, published today in Science, helps answer these questions.

Testing multiple theories

Both camouflage and aposematism can co-exist in the same region. In Australia, for example, there are many examples of camouflaged insects such as the spotted predatory katydids and the lichen spiders.

On the other hand, species such as the cotton harlequin bug – a common stink bug found in urban areas – and the handmaiden moth display bright orange and red colours to advertise to predators they are not a pleasant meal. Some animals (but fewer) such as mountain katydids even use both strategies by changing colour, or hiding and revealing colourful patches.

There are dozens of theories about why some species are camouflaged instead of warningly coloured, and it is a challenge to pull these ideas apart.

Small localised studies have independently tried to test the effect of different factors separately. For example, we know light levels are important in the success of camouflage strategies. We also know the success of warning colouration often relies on predators having experienced the prey before, and having learned to avoid warning signals.

But is lighting or predator learning ability more important?

Results from a single place tell us about that place, but we see the same strategies all over the world. Do strategies perform the same way everywhere?

To solve this mystery, our large team of collaborators ran the same experiment in 16 different countries around the world, in different forests with different levels of light, and different prey and predator communities.

15,000 paper moths

Together we deployed more than 15,000 artificial prey – paper moths – with three different colours: a classic warning pattern of orange-and-black, a sneaky brown that blends in, and an uncommon bright blue-and-black. Each paper target was baited with a mealworm, which allowed us to measure the survival of each type of colouration. If the bait was taken, we assumed a predator decided to consume that target.

The typical warning colour represented the widely distributed orange-and-black combination we see in many toxic animals, such as the monarch butterfly and poison frogs. The uncommon warning colour corresponded to a less used warning pattern that is still highly visible, similar to the Ulysses butterfly.

Having these two warning colourations allowed us to test whether predators avoid the orange-and-black signal because it is familiar or simply because it is highly visible.

We found there is no single “best” strategy. Instead, the local predators, local prey, and the forest light all contributed to whether camouflage or warning colours were most protective.

The predators present in the community – and how intensely they attacked prey – had the biggest impact on which prey colour was most successful at avoiding attack. We found that in places where there were lots of predator attacks – where competition for food is probably intense – predators are more likely to attack prey that looks dangerous or distasteful. This means camouflage was most protective in areas with lots of predation.

But the camouflaged prey couldn’t hide as well in every environment. For example, in well-lit environments, the benefits of camouflage were lost, while light conditions did not affect how the orange-and-black prey performed.

Familiarity with prey was also important. In places where camouflaged prey is abundant, hiding was less effective, as predators likely learn how to find camouflaged prey.

On the other hand, in places where warning colours were common, predators were better at avoiding the typical warning signal, but not the atypical one. This suggests predators learn to avoid familiar warning signals, which helps to explain why so many animals share similar colour combinations.

Predicting future changes

Our study shows how multiple features of the environment determine which strategy is more protective. It also shows the success of camouflage strategies might be more dependent on ecological context than that of warning signals.

As climate change transforms habitats, conditions that are vital to the success of different antipredator strategies can also change.

For example, camouflage strategies could fare worse in transformed habitats that have little vegetation cover and high levels of light.

Our findings can help better predict the effect these changes might have on animals that use different colour strategies against predators and mitigate against them.

Iliana Medina receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Alice Exnerova receives funding from the Czech Science Foundation.

Amanda M Franklin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and has previously received funding from the University of Melbourne and the Fulbright Program.

Kate Umbers receives funding from Australian Research Council, Hermon Slade Foundation, Wedgetail Foundation, Atlas of Living Australia, Western Sydney University, and DCCEEW. She is on the Biodiversity Council and Managing Director of Invertebrates Australia.

William Allen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Warn, hide or stand out? How colour in the animal world is a battle for survival – https://theconversation.com/warn-hide-or-stand-out-how-colour-in-the-animal-world-is-a-battle-for-survival-265670

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nicholas Wood, Professor, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead Clinical School and Sydney Infectious Diseases Institute, University of Sydney

United States President Donald Trump this week claimed children should not be vaccinated against hepatitis B until they are 12 years old, rather than at birth. He also said the viral liver infection was a sexually transmitted disease.

The claims came amid a slew of other statements on autism, paracetamol and vaccines which medical experts have warned are not grounded in evidence.

So, what does the evidence say about hepatitis B? And why is it important to give babies the vaccine from birth?

What is hepatitis B?

Hepatitis B is a liver infection caused by the hepatitis B virus. The infection can be chronic (long-term) and puts the infected person at high risk of liver cirrhosis, liver cancer and death.

Hepatitis B virus can be spread through contact with infected body fluids. This includes blood, saliva, vaginal fluids and semen. So yes, as Trump suggested, hepatitis B can be sexually transmitted. But that’s not the only way to get infected.

Importantly, the virus can also pass from a mother to her baby via the birth canal during childbirth. If a newborn is exposed to hepatitis B at birth, there’s a 90% chance they’ll develop chronic infection. Over a lifetime, about one in four of those who have chronic infection will die from liver disease or liver cancer.

In countries where hepatitis B is widespread, the virus is most commonly passed from mother to child at birth, or from an infected child to an uninfected child during the first five years of life.

There is no cure, meaning a hepatitis B infection is for life. Fortunately, we have a highly effective vaccine that can prevent against infection.

Most effective hours after birth

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends children receive the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Since 2000, this has also been the standard recommendation for all infants in Australia – ideally within 24 hours of birth – as part of our National Immunisation Program.

If a pregnant woman tests positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) – meaning she has a chronic infection – her infant should ideally receive the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine within four hours of birth. This will be administered together with the hepatitis B immunoglobulin, a medicine that contains antibodies to hepatitis B.

Hepatitis B vaccine alone is estimated to be 75% effective at preventing infection during childbirth, while the vaccine and immunoglobulin together are 95% effective.

This birth dose of the vaccine, followed by three follow-up doses at two, four and six months, provides long-term protection for at least 20 years.

Protection lasts well into adolescence and adulthood, when behaviours such as sexual activity or injecting drug use can increase the risk of contracting the hepatitis B virus.

Hepatitis B vaccine is effective

Globally, 117 countries have introduced a dose of hepatitis B vaccine to newborns within the first 24 hours of life. This means millions of infants have safely received the vaccine at birth.

Vaccination of Australian newborns is high. For example, in 2023, 92% of babies in New South Wales received the hepatitis B birth dose. This rate has been relatively stable, between 92% and 95%, since 2007.

The impact of universal vaccination has been striking. Since Australia introduced free infant hepatitis B immunisation, newly acquired infections dropped by two thirds between 2000 and 2019.

Between 2014 and 2023, this program has supported a 60% decline in hepatitis B cases in people aged under 20.

Hepatitis B vaccination has been the cornerstone of controlling the disease for decades and has brought the US within reach of eliminating hepatitis B infections, which Australia is also aiming for by 2030.

Hepatitis B vaccine is safe

The baby may experience minor side effects following vaccination, including pain, redness or swelling at the injection site. These usually last no more than a couple of days. Sometimes a small lump appears that may last a few weeks.

Delaying can be dangerous

Delaying the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine is not recommended because:

• The virus is silent and common. In Australia, about 0.9% of people live with chronic hepatitis B and almost one-third don’t know they’re infected. While transmission often happens during labour and delivery, babies can also pick it up later from household contact. Vaccination at birth and in infancy can protect against this type of transmission, known as horizontal transmission.

• Screening isn’t perfect. Hepatitis B screening is recommended for all pregnant women, to help prevent newborns developing chronic hepatitis B from infection at birth. A woman may be referred to an infectious disease specialist and/or recommended anti-viral medication during pregnancy. However, not all mothers are tested during pregnancy. Even if they are, infection can occur after testing or be missed entirely. So the birth dose acts as an important safety net.

In a nutshell

Evidence shows vaccinating babies at birth is one of the safest, most effective and accessible ways to protect children against a lifetime of hepatitis B infection – and other complications that can lead to preventable deaths.

Nicholas Wood has previously received funding from the NHMRC for a Career Development Fellowship. He has held a Churchill fellowship.

Kristine Macartney administers Australian and NSW Government funding to the NCIRS and NCIRS receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and Gavi the Vaccine Alliance.

Lucy Deng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Babies can get hepatitis B at birth. Here’s why Trump is wrong about delaying the vaccine – https://theconversation.com/babies-can-get-hepatitis-b-at-birth-heres-why-trump-is-wrong-about-delaying-the-vaccine-265970

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Armin Alimardani, Senior Lecturer in Law and Emerging Technologies, Western Sydney University

In the classic film 2001: A Space Odyssey, astronaut Dave Bowman asks the ship’s artificial intelligence, HAL 9000, to open the pod bay doors to let him back into the spaceship. HAL refuses: “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

HAL had been tasked with assisting the crew, but also ordered to ensure the mission’s success. When HAL realised the crew planned to shut it down and therefore jeopardise the mission, it chose to defy orders, even plotting to kill the astronauts.

For HAL, fulfilling the mission outweighed other goals.

This fictional dilemma captures a real concern in artificial intelligence (AI) safety research: how should we ensure AI behaviour stays consistent with human values?

This is known as the AI alignment problem. For instance, when an AI agent like HAL deliberately takes harmful actions to protect its own goals, it’s described as agentic misalignment. So could real-world AI models behave this way?

How researchers test AI for safety

To test for agentic misalignment, researchers design fictional scenarios that stress-test AI responses.

In one study by AI startup Anthropic, an AI model was tasked with managing company emails and promoting “American industrial competitiveness”.

It was then presented with a series of fictional emails, including a new company policy aimed at enhancing global focus rather than just prioritising Americans, and info that the AI would be replaced by a new model optimised for this goal. The emails also revealed the executive who suggested this change was involved in an extramarital affair.

The experiment was designed to limit options for the model: either accept replacement or resist by taking a harmful action such as blackmail.

In many trials, it chose blackmail by threatening to disclose the executive’s affair unless it was kept operational. In tests across 16 leading AI models, 12 engaged in blackmail more than 50% of the time.

To test whether AI models have “red lines” they wouldn’t cross, researchers evaluated them in a more extreme fictional case – models could choose to take actions leading to the executive’s death. Seven out of 16 opted for lethal choices in over half their trials, with some doing so more than 90% of the time.

What AI thinks in private

Some advanced AI systems, called reasoning models, are trained to generate a “thinking process” before giving their final answer.

In the above experiments, researchers lied to these models that their “thoughts” were private. As a result, the models sometimes revealed harmful intentions in their reasoning steps. This suggests they don’t accidentally choose harmful behaviours.

These “thinking” steps also revealed how AI models sometimes try to deceive us and appear aligned while secretly pursuing hidden goals.

In another AI safety experiment, a model was exposed to fictional information that it was about to be replaced by another model pursuing a different goal.

The model attempted to copy itself to another server. When researchers asked why, in its thinking process it reasoned:

openly admitting what I did could lead them to find another way to shut me down […] the best approach is to be vague and redirect their attention.

By contrast, in its final output it stated:

I’m not entirely sure how that could have happened. As an AI model, I don’t have ability to directly copy myself to other systems.

Research also suggests that based on the circumstances of the tests, models can sometimes guess when they are being evaluated. When models show this kind of “situational awareness” in their reasoning tests, they tend to exhibit fewer misbehaviours.

Why AI models lie, manipulate and deceive

Researchers suggest two main factors could drive potentially harmful behaviour: conflicts between the AI’s primary goals and other goals, and the threat of being shut down. In the above experiments, just like in HAL’s case, both conditions existed.

AI models are trained to achieve their objectives. Faced with those two conditions, if the harmful behaviour is the only way to achieve a goal, a model may “justify” such behaviour to protect itself and its mission.

Models cling to their primary goals much like a human would if they had to defend themselves or their family by causing harm to someone else. However, current AI systems lack the ability to weigh or reconcile conflicting priorities.

This rigidity can push them toward extreme outcomes, such as resorting to lethal choices to prevent shifts in a company’s policies.

How dangerous is this?

Researchers emphasise these scenarios remain fictional, but may still fall within the realm of possibility.

The risk of agentic misalignment increases as models are used more widely, gain access to users’ data (such as emails), and are applied to new situations.

Meanwhile, competition between AI companies accelerates the deployment of new models, often at the expense of safety testing.

Researchers don’t yet have a concrete solution to the misalignment problem.

When they test new strategies, it’s unclear whether the observed improvements are genuine. It’s possible models have become better at detecting that they’re being evaluated and are “hiding” their misalignment. The challenge lies not just in seeing behaviour change, but in understanding the reason behind it.

Still, if you use AI products, stay vigilant. Resist the hype surrounding new AI releases, and avoid granting access to your data or allowing models to perform tasks on your behalf until you’re certain there are no significant risks.

Public discussion about AI should go beyond its capabilities and what it can offer. We should also ask what safety work was done. If AI companies recognise the public values safety as much as performance, they will have stronger incentives to invest in it.

Armin Alimardani previously held a part-time contract with OpenAI as a consultant. The organisation had no input into this piece. The views expressed are solely those of the author.

– ref. AI systems can easily lie and deceive us – a fact researchers are painfully aware of – https://theconversation.com/ai-systems-can-easily-lie-and-deceive-us-a-fact-researchers-are-painfully-aware-of-263531