NYTimes: “Scientists at Columbia University have edited the DNA of early human embryos with unprecedented accuracy, an achievement that could open the way to babies engineered with particular characteristics. The prospect has fueled controversy for years. On the one hand, the technology might one day enable parents to safely repair disease-causing mutations in embryos. But it might also be used to select desired traits — a practice that some ethicists have argued is nothing short of eugenics. Dieter Egli, a geneticist at Columbia University who led the research, called for a public conversation about the pros and cons of altering embryonic DNA. “As a scientist, you can provide the data for discussion, but then essentially there you stop and let others take over,” he said.”
FT: “For most people working in markets, business or government, the canonical examples of a global financial crisis are 1929 and 2007-09. Liaquat Ahamed’s new book brings to life a third global cataclysm that was not like either of its successors and raises intriguing parallels with today’s technology and geopolitically charged world. The cast of 1873 includes Mark Twain, Karl Marx, Egyptian accountants and Prussian officers turned speculators. The boom and the bust they lived through helped create the modern world.”
WSJ: “Finance chiefs are trying to get a better read on how much AI their companies are using to avoid a sticker shock moment as vendors begin charging for the technology by tokens. The shift to pricing based on usage, and measured by tokens—the basic unit of measurement for AI computing—is creating new challenges for even the most experienced finance teams. CFOs used to paying flat amounts for technology are finding costs more unpredictable and harder to model as they build agents and embark on ambitious AI investments. Twenty-six percent of companies say they have a comprehensive view of their AI costs, while 50% have some visibility and 22% report no visibility or visibility after billing, according to an as-yet-unreleased survey from KPMG. “It’s a new resource that needs to be managed that didn’t exist quite that way, and we’re seeing exponential growth,” said Steve Chase, KPMG’s global head of AI.”
Mint: “India already sees $15 billion in annual philanthropic giving, nearly 100 times the annual need estimate. This is comparable to India’s startup funding, placed at around $12 billion dollars every year. Yet, 80% of non-profits struggle to scale due to funding constraints. The issue is not capital but a lack of ‘flexible funding.’ Flexible funding, akin to venture capital for startups, is a distant dream in the non-profit sector. Most funders restrict grants to specific programmes, tightly defined budgets and short timelines. We have argued previously that building scalable, low-cost solutions requires iteration, experimentation and adaptability—conditions incompatible with line-item funding.”
