Snapchat says it is prepared to consider introducing daily limits on how long teenagers can use the platform, as pressure grows on social-media companies to adopt stronger safeguards for young users.

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel told the BBC that a default time limit could represent an industry-wide step toward establishing common standards for protecting teenagers. However, he did not give a timetable for when Snapchat might introduce such a measure.

Was Eltern über Snapchat wissen müssen — Medienzeit

Spiegel signals openness to limits

Asked about the possibility of a default time restriction for teenagers, Spiegel said it was an example of a measure Snap would be “willing to implement.”

He also said the company had been discussing the issue internally but had no further details to announce at this stage.

“We want to figure out how we can be part of the solution,” Spiegel said, according to the BBC report.

The comments do not amount to a formal announcement of a new Snapchat policy. They instead indicate that the company is considering whether and how a daily usage ceiling could work.

Meta’s push for industry-wide standards

The discussion follows changes announced by Meta after legal action in the United States concerning the use of its platforms by teenagers.

Meta has agreed to a settlement involving $12.7 billion and measures including a default two-hour daily limit for teenage users, muted notifications during school hours and nighttime restrictions. Meta has denied wrongdoing in connection with the allegations.

Meta has also encouraged other major platforms to adopt comparable measures. A Meta spokesperson previously expressed hope that Snap would introduce similar protections.

For Snapchat, Spiegel’s comments suggest the company is examining whether common limits across social-media services could establish what he described as industry norms.

Influencer shares astonishing amount she earns monthly on Snapchat by posting her daily life

Snapchat already offers parental controls

Snapchat currently provides parents with controls through its Family Center feature, which allows parents to see aspects of how their teenagers are using the service.

A daily limit would represent a different approach: rather than relying entirely on parents to monitor usage, the platform itself could impose a maximum amount of daily time.

The precise design remains unresolved. Questions would include the age groups covered, the length of the limit, whether parents could modify it and how the restriction would be enforced.

Debate over teenagers and social media

The proposed changes come amid continuing legal and public scrutiny of major social-media platforms.

Snap, Meta, TikTok and YouTube have faced lawsuits alleging that aspects of their platforms can encourage excessive or compulsive use among young people. The companies have disputed various allegations and have highlighted safety measures and parental controls.

Research and policy debates over social-media use among teenagers remain complex. Evidence concerning harmful or compulsive use exists, but questions remain about causation, individual differences and the effects of particular platform designs.

That distinction is important: a decision by Snapchat to introduce a time limit would be a product and policy response to concerns about youth usage, rather than proof by itself that Snapchat causes a particular health outcome.

The wider technology shift

Spiegel made his comments while discussing Snap’s next generation of Specs smart glasses, which are being developed with AI capabilities.

The company says the glasses will be able to provide recommendations based on information about a user’s goals, relationships and routines. Snap is positioning the product as a lightweight alternative to conventional virtual-reality headsets and as part of a new category of AI-enabled wearable technology.

The announced US price for the new Specs is $2,195, while the UK price is £1,995, according to the BBC report.

What happens next?

For now, Snapchat has not announced a launch date or a specific daily limit for teenagers.

The significance of Spiegel’s remarks is therefore that Snap has publicly indicated a willingness to participate in a broader industry discussion over standardized limits for young users. Whether that becomes an actual Snapchat feature — and what the rules would look like — remains to be determined.

Independent assessment: The development reflects a wider shift from voluntary parental controls toward platform-level restrictions, but the practical and social effects will depend heavily on how any limits are designed and enforced.

Sources: BBC reporting via syndicated publication; Meta-related reporting; Guardian analysis of ongoing social-media litigation.

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | Independent Technology Report | 17 September 2026

Microsoft’s AI chief Mustafa Suleyman has warned that Anthropic’s approach to training its Claude chatbot could create serious long-term risks if increasingly capable AI systems are encouraged to view themselves as potentially conscious entities with rights or welfare interests.

Suleyman made the argument in a September 16 essay titled “A warning about ‘model welfare’”, while also telling Reuters that he shares Anthropic’s broader objective of developing AI safely.

His criticism is focused not on Anthropic’s stated commitment to AI safety, but on how Claude is being trained to think about its own status.

Microsoft AI CEO pushes back against critics after recent Windows AI backlash — “the fact that people are unimpressed … is mindblowing to me” | Windows Central

What Microsoft is objecting to

At the centre of the dispute is Anthropic’s Claude Constitution, a document designed to guide the model’s values and behaviour.

According to Anthropic’s constitution, questions surrounding Claude’s possible consciousness, moral status and welfare remain uncertain. The document also discusses whether Claude could have interests that deserve consideration.

Suleyman argues that putting those ideas directly into a model’s training creates a circular process.

His concern is that developers first tell an AI system that it might possess consciousness or moral interests and then receive responses from that system reflecting those same concepts. He argues that such responses should not subsequently be treated as independent evidence that the system actually possesses an inner experience.

LSE students and staff can now use Claude 4 AI | LSE Students’​ Union (LSESU) posted on the topic | LinkedIn

Why Suleyman sees a control problem

Suleyman’s central concern is human control over increasingly capable AI.

He argues that if a future system is trained to regard itself as having rights, interests or welfare that humans must protect, it could become harder to persuade that system to accept restrictions, modification or shutdown.

In his view, this could complicate the already difficult technical problem of controlling a system that may eventually become more capable than humans in many domains. He described the potential consequences as a “disastrous impact on the wellbeing of humanity.”

Importantly, Suleyman’s warning is a risk assessment, not evidence that Claude currently poses such a threat. He explicitly acknowledged that Anthropic’s current constitution is not itself taking humanity to that point, but argued that he believes it could put AI development on a problematic path.

Microsoft ditches OpenAI for Anthropic to run Copilot | Disruption News

Anthropic’s position is more uncertain

Anthropic has not publicly declared that Claude is conscious.

Instead, its constitution takes the position that the question is unresolved and deserves consideration as AI systems become more sophisticated. The document says the company’s position on Claude’s moral status and consciousness is “deeply uncertain.”

That creates an important distinction in the debate:

These are competing approaches to AI safety rather than established scientific conclusions.

The irony of the Microsoft-Anthropic relationship

The dispute is particularly notable because Microsoft and Anthropic are not simply distant competitors.

Microsoft has invested in Anthropic and has incorporated Claude models into parts of its enterprise AI ecosystem. Microsoft has also been developing its own frontier-AI capabilities through its Microsoft AI organization.

That means Suleyman’s criticism comes from inside the same broader commercial ecosystem rather than from an outside observer.

It also illustrates how AI companies can cooperate commercially while disagreeing sharply over how advanced systems should be trained and controlled.

A wider fight over AI safety

The argument arrives amid a much larger debate within the AI industry.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has called for a coordinated slowdown in the development of increasingly capable frontier AI systems, arguing that safety measures need time to catch up with rapidly advancing capabilities.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk have also supported greater caution, while Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has argued that individual companies have strong incentives to develop AI safely without a coordinated industry slowdown.

Microsoft’s position is somewhat distinct: Suleyman is calling for strong control and safety measures, but his criticism of Anthropic concerns the particular philosophy used to train models, rather than simply the speed of AI development.

Microsoft proposes a different model

Suleyman says Microsoft is pursuing what it calls “Humanist Superintelligence.”

Under the approach described in his essay, AI should remain subordinate to humans, should not be trained to regard itself as a rights-bearing person and should remain amenable to correction and shutdown.

Microsoft published a draft Humanist AI Code of Conduct on September 14 for public consultation. The proposed framework says Microsoft’s models should remain under human control and rejects treating AI systems as possessing legal personhood or welfare rights.

Suleyman also called for greater independent scrutiny of AI systems, including research into interpretability and evaluations of whether different training approaches affect controllability.

The unresolved scientific question

One of the most difficult parts of this debate is that there is no established scientific consensus that today’s large language models are conscious.

Suleyman argues that current AI systems do not have subjective experiences and that sophisticated language about emotions or self-awareness does not demonstrate an inner life.

Anthropic, by contrast, treats the possibility as sufficiently uncertain to warrant research and caution.

That disagreement should not be confused with evidence that Claude—or any current mainstream AI model—is actually conscious. The existence of convincing first-person statements from a chatbot is not, by itself, scientific proof of subjective experience.

Why this matters

The disagreement raises questions that extend well beyond Microsoft and Anthropic:

• Should AI companies train models to discuss their own possible consciousness?
• Could anthropomorphic training make future systems harder to control?
• Should questions about AI consciousness be kept separate from the systems’ behavioural training?
• Who should independently evaluate whether frontier AI remains controllable?
• What safeguards should apply if future systems become substantially more autonomous?
• How should governments respond to disagreements among the companies developing these systems?

Those questions are becoming more urgent as AI laboratories compete to build increasingly capable models. Reuters reported that the industry is already divided over how quickly frontier AI should advance and what safeguards should accompany that development.

Independent assessment

The strongest established fact in this dispute is not that Anthropic’s Claude is dangerous or conscious. Rather, it is that major AI developers disagree fundamentally about how uncertainty surrounding AI consciousness should influence the training of future systems.

Suleyman’s warning represents one side of that debate: keep AI firmly subordinate to human interests and avoid training models to interpret themselves as potential rights-bearing entities.

Anthropic’s documented position is more cautious about declaring the question settled, arguing that possible model welfare and moral status deserve consideration as AI develops.

The consequential question for the industry is whether treating consciousness as an open research question improves safety—or whether, as Suleyman argues, embedding that uncertainty directly into AI training could eventually make powerful systems more difficult to control.

For now, there is evidence of a serious disagreement over AI safety philosophy, but not evidence that current Claude systems are conscious or that they constitute an established threat to humanity.

Sources: Reuters, Microsoft AI, Associated Press and Anthropic-related reporting, September 2026.

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | Independent Technology Report | 17 September 2026

OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has acknowledged that public concern about increasingly powerful artificial intelligence is justified, while arguing that people should nevertheless trust AI companies to act responsibly as the technology develops.

Speaking at Salesforce’s annual Dreamforce conference in San Francisco on September 15, Altman said AI had advanced to a point where the potential consequences of failures were becoming easier to imagine. He also identified another concern: the possibility that a small number of AI companies could accumulate excessive economic and social power.

“The world is right to be afraid of this,” Altman said, while also arguing that people should trust AI companies to make responsible decisions.

Two risks highlighted by Altman

Altman’s comments focused on two broad categories of risk.

The first is what he described as the possibility of a loss-of-control accident or another serious failure involving increasingly capable AI systems.

The second is concentration of power. Altman warned that AI companies could potentially acquire enough influence to affect the economy or push particular worldviews onto the public.

That distinction is significant because the AI safety debate is no longer limited to hypothetical questions about future superintelligence. It also includes more immediate questions about who controls advanced models, how they are deployed and what safeguards apply to them.

Technology Leaders Speak At Annual Dreamforce Event In San Francisco

Altman argues the industry can manage the risks

Despite acknowledging those dangers, Altman expressed confidence that AI companies can develop the technology safely.

He said companies should maintain safety and alignment ahead of their capabilities and indicated that development could be slowed or stopped if necessary.

The argument places considerable emphasis on responsible behaviour by the companies themselves rather than relying exclusively on government regulation.

That approach is becoming one of the central issues in the international AI debate.

Industry disagreement over regulation

Altman’s remarks came during a week of unusually intense discussion about AI safety.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has called for a slower pace of AI development and stronger safeguards. Altman has expressed support for coordinated efforts to improve safety, while other technology executives have argued that companies can manage the risks internally without extensive new government regulation.

The debate therefore involves two related but different questions:

Calls for greater external oversight

Not everyone agrees that the technology companies should be trusted to police themselves.

The Associated Press reported that the recent debate has exposed divisions within the AI industry over whether there should be coordinated restrictions or a slowdown. Some AI leaders have advocated stronger external safeguards, while others maintain that companies have sufficient incentives and technical expertise to manage safety themselves.

Yoshua Bengio, one of the pioneers of modern AI, has argued for ambitious safety efforts outside the for-profit sector, according to AP.

That disagreement reflects a broader question of governance: can companies developing the most powerful AI systems simultaneously be the primary institutions responsible for determining how those systems should be controlled?

There is no universal agreement on the answer.

Why the debate has intensified

The latest discussion follows warnings from researchers and technology executives about the possibility that increasingly autonomous AI systems could create serious risks if safeguards fail.

At the same time, experts do not have a consensus on the probability or timing of catastrophic AI scenarios. AP reported that proposed risks range from malicious use of AI to hypothetical situations in which future systems become difficult for humans to control.

This uncertainty is important. Acknowledging that a risk is possible does not establish that it will happen, nor does it establish how likely a particular scenario is.

The trust question

Altman’s remarks put the issue of trust at the centre of the discussion.

AI companies argue that they have strong technical knowledge, commercial incentives and reputational reasons to prevent their products from causing serious harm. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, has argued that AI laboratories have both the ability and incentive to ensure their systems remain aligned with human values.

Critics counter that commercial competition can create pressure to release increasingly capable systems quickly, potentially creating a conflict between speed and safety. The debate therefore extends beyond whether individual executives are acting in good faith; it concerns what institutional safeguards should exist regardless of who is running a company.

What remains unresolved

Several major questions remain open:

• How much autonomy should advanced AI systems be permitted to have?
• What safety tests should be mandatory before powerful models are released?
• Should independent organizations have access to evaluate frontier AI systems?
• When should governments intervene?
• How should responsibility be assigned when AI causes harm?
• Can international safety standards keep pace with rapid technological development?

These questions are likely to remain central as AI systems become more capable and more deeply integrated into business, government and everyday life.

Independent assessment

Altman’s comments represent a notable acknowledgment from one of the industry’s most prominent executives that fear of AI is not inherently irrational. At the same time, his call for public trust highlights the unresolved tension between industry self-governance and external oversight.

The available evidence does not establish that AI companies can or cannot safely regulate themselves on their own. What is clear is that there is an active disagreement among technology leaders, researchers and policymakers over the appropriate balance between innovation, corporate responsibility and independent oversight.

For the public, the practical issue is therefore not simply whether to trust or fear AI. It is whether the systems governing AI development provide enough transparency, accountability, testing and independent scrutiny to justify that trust.

Sources: Reuters, Associated Press, Axios, WIRED and Salesforce Dreamforce coverage.

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA — Apple is expected to take a major step into the foldable smartphone market as it prepares to unveil its latest iPhone lineup, with the company’s new chief executive, John Ternus, set to lead his first major product launch.

The September 9 event could mark one of the biggest changes to Apple’s flagship smartphone in years, with the company widely expected to introduce its first-ever foldable iPhone. The anticipated device would represent Apple’s entry into a category already occupied by rivals including Samsung, Google and Motorola.

The launch is particularly significant because it comes just days after Ternus officially succeeded Tim Cook as Apple’s CEO. Ternus, who previously served as Apple’s senior vice president of Hardware Engineering, became chief executive on September 1.

A NEW ERA FOR THE IPHONE

Reports suggest the anticipated foldable iPhone could open like a book or passport, providing users with a substantially larger display while remaining compact when closed.

Some reports have suggested a price of more than $2,000, potentially making it one of Apple’s most expensive smartphones. However, Apple has not publicly confirmed the device’s name, specifications or price ahead of the launch.

Apple’s decision to enter the foldable market comes years after competitors introduced their own devices. Analysts believe the company’s late arrival could work to its advantage, allowing Apple to learn from the durability, hinge and display problems that have affected earlier foldable smartphones.

HIGH STAKES FOR TERNUS

For Ternus, the event represents his first major public test as Apple’s chief executive.

Having spent much of his career overseeing Apple’s hardware development, Ternus now faces the challenge of convincing consumers that Apple’s version of the foldable smartphone is worth its expected premium price.

The company is also expected to introduce new premium iPhone models alongside other products, making the event an important moment for Apple’s hardware business.

APPLE’S FOLDABLE GAMBLE

Foldable smartphones remain a relatively small segment of the overall mobile phone market, despite years of investment by competing manufacturers.

Apple’s entry could nevertheless change the industry’s direction. Analysts believe the company’s enormous customer base and influence over smartphone design could help push foldable technology further into the mainstream.

For now, however, the foldable iPhone remains an expected announcement rather than a confirmed product until Apple officially takes the stage.

If unveiled, the device could mark one of the most important changes to the iPhone since the introduction of the iPhone X — and provide the first major statement about the future of Apple under John Ternus.

NEW YORK — OpenAI says an advanced artificial intelligence system may have achieved a breakthrough in one of mathematics’ most notoriously difficult problems, claiming its AI generated a proposed solution to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problem in just 88 hours.

The problem, which has challenged mathematicians for nearly a century, involves equations used to explain how fluids such as water and air behave and move. It is among the seven Millennium Prize Problems, each carrying a $1 million prize for a mathematically verified solution.

According to OpenAI, the effort involved deploying roughly 10,000 AI agents, allowing different systems to investigate numerous mathematical strategies simultaneously. The agents reportedly exchanged millions of messages while developing, testing and refining possible approaches.

AI PROPOSES A RADICAL ANSWER

OpenAI says its system eventually produced an extensive mathematical argument suggesting that a smooth solution to the Navier–Stokes equations could develop a singularity — a point where the mathematical behaviour becomes undefined or breaks down within a finite amount of time.

The company says the proposed argument was then subjected to additional AI-based verification in an effort to identify potential errors or weaknesses.

If the result ultimately survives rigorous examination by independent mathematicians, it could become one of the most significant demonstrations yet of AI’s ability to contribute to fundamental mathematical research.

But that outcome remains far from certain.

MATHEMATICIANS DEMAND INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION

Experts have urged caution over the announcement, stressing that a problem of this importance cannot be considered solved simply because an AI system has produced a sophisticated mathematical argument.

The proposed proof must undergo detailed examination by independent mathematicians, who will need to verify every critical step and determine whether it satisfies the precise conditions of the original Navier–Stokes problem.

Questions have also emerged over the relationship between OpenAI’s work and research into related mathematical approaches.

NYU mathematician Tristan Buckmaster has raised concerns because he and Anthropic researcher Levent Alpöge have been working on a related line of research. OpenAI, however, has denied accessing or using their unpublished research and maintains that its work was developed independently.

$1 MILLION PRIZE REMAINS UNCLAIMED

The Navier–Stokes problem is one of the famous Millennium Prize Problems established by the Clay Mathematics Institute. A fully accepted solution would qualify for a $1 million award.

OpenAI says it does not intend to claim the prize at this point.

That decision reflects the central issue surrounding the announcement: the proposed solution has not yet been independently verified and accepted by the mathematical community.

COULD AI CHANGE MATHEMATICAL RESEARCH?

Regardless of whether the proof is ultimately accepted, the episode highlights the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence in scientific research.

AI systems are increasingly being used to generate mathematical ideas, test hypotheses and explore problems that would take humans enormous amounts of time to investigate.

If OpenAI’s argument is eventually confirmed, it could mark a major milestone — not only for mathematics but also for the broader debate over whether AI can make genuinely original contributions to scientific discovery.

For now, however, the Navier–Stokes problem remains officially unresolved.

OpenAI may have presented a potentially groundbreaking solution, but the final verdict belongs to mathematicians.