There is a temptation to divide the future of AI into two possibilities: utopia or catastrophe. Neither extreme is particularly helpful.

The more interesting possibility is messier – and requires a step-shift in our thinking, from artificial intelligence to AI societies.

When most people hear “AI”, they typically think of ChatGPT, Copilot or another conversational system. You ask a question, that system generates an answer.

But AI is rapidly moving beyond this. Systems can now monitor the world, make decisions, negotiate transactions and carry out tasks over extended periods of time. AI is no longer just generating an answer – it is doing something about it.

That points to something much bigger than a better chatbot: a world in which AI agents act on our behalf and, increasingly, interact with other AI agents.

An agent perceives what is happening, decides what to do, then takes actions to achieve this goal. It might book a journey, monitor a supply chain, coordinate a team, or manage a household’s finances.

Now imagine not one agent, but millions of them. Your AI agent could negotiate a mortgage with your bank’s agent, schedule surgery with a hospital’s agent, and rearrange your travel plans by dealing directly with the agents of airlines, hotels and insurers.

This future is much closer than it sounds, and this should change the questions we are asking about AI. Until now, the tendency has been to focus on how intelligent a single agent might become. The more profound challenge is what happens when millions of them interact with one another at scale.

The rise of artificial societies

The intellectual foundations of today’s AI systems were laid long before ChatGPT.

For decades, I and other researchers of multi-agent networks have studied how autonomous agents can cooperate, coordinate and negotiate when nobody has complete information and nobody controls everything.

The earliest systems that emerged focused on how the distinct AI sub-areas of reasoning, planning and acting could be combined into an effective goal-oriented agent – and how tens of these agents could communicate and cooperate to solve a common objective.

As these interactions became more complex and involved more agents, there was a shift from cooperation between agents that all belonged to a single organisation, to agents with different owners and sometimes competing aims. This focused attention on building algorithms that could form agent teams, automate negotiation and determine agent trustworthiness.

Today, the pieces needed to build large-scale multi-agent AI systems are falling into place. Modern AI agents can call software tools, access information, write and execute code, communicate with other systems and operate for extended periods.

Consider a supply chain. One AI agent could represent a manufacturer trying to secure components; another a supplier trying to maximise its revenue. Yet more could manage transport, inventory and warehouses. Each agent might be doing exactly what it is designed to do. But the important question is whether the system they create behaves sensibly.

This shift offers enormous potential benefits, but also increases the risks. In a recent experiment involving OpenAI and the tech platform Hugging Face, thousands of collaborating agents exchanged tens of thousands of messages and were able to get around the (deliberately weakened) security controls designed to contain them.

The details of one experiment matter less than the broader warning. When AI systems interact, the behaviour of the collective can be harder to predict than the behaviour of any individual system. That should make us cautious – but not cause us to down tools.

Instead, we need to shift our mindset from building intelligent machines to building intelligent societies.

Once agents can cooperate, compete and resolve conflicts with one another, we are no longer dealing with isolated machines – we are dealing with a society. Thus, the next frontier is not artificial intelligence, it is artificial societies.

An important role for humans

We already know that intelligence alone does not make a society work. Human societies depend on rules, institutions, incentives, norms and mechanisms for resolving disagreements. AI societies will need their equivalents.

Who is responsible when two agents make a bad decision? What happens when the interests of different agents conflict? Who sets the rules? And who has the power to change them? These are not just technical issues; they are questions about economics, law, politics and society.

They also point to an important role for humans. The most useful future is unlikely to be one in which AI simply replaces people. While replacement will undoubtedly happen in some cases, I believe a more common scenario will involve people and agents working together, with each doing what it does best.

Humans bring judgment, experience, values, contextual understanding and accountability. Agents bring speed, persistence, scale and the ability to process enormous amounts of information.

The goal should not be to create machines that make humans irrelevant. It should be to create systems in which humans and machines can achieve things neither can achieve alone.

But such a future requires more than just better AI models. It needs trust and transparency about what agents are doing, strong privacy protections and clear lines of accountability.

It will also require societies and governments to decide how these systems should be regulated when the most important behaviour may emerge not from one AI developer, but from interactions between systems built by many different organisations.

AI’s past decade has been defined by a race to build smarter systems. I believe the next decade will be defined by a different challenge: ensuring that millions of autonomous systems can work together safely, fairly and effectively.

The future of AI will not be determined solely by the intelligence of individual agents – it will be determined by the societies they create. And societies, as humans know all too well, are much harder to govern than individuals.

The company behind the Transformers franchise has issued a statement following the Donald Trump administration’s recent posts using the likeness of one of the company’s signature characters.

“Far too many American lives have been lost or permanently changed because illegal aliens who have no business being on our roads have been granted CDLs.”

A day later, Hasbro – the owner of the Transformers brand – issued a statement which read: “Optimus Prime is a beloved character who represents humility, leadership, compassion and justice.

“Hasbro is aware of the recent posts using his likeness. These posts were done without permission and do not represent the Transformers brand or Hasbro.”

This message was then reshared by the official Transformers account.

Hasbro’s statement follows numerous singers and brands taking issue with Trump and his team for using their music and likeness in his social media posts, which are often AI-generated.

The 101 Dalmatians Zip Purse, sold in Primark stores across the UK between March and June 2026, has been found to contain unsafe levels of phthalates.

Phthalates are chemical compounds used to make plastics softer and more flexible, but they are strictly regulated due to health concerns, especially for children.

A Primark spokesperson said: “We are recalling our product 101 Dalmatians Faux Leather Coin Purse (Kimball no. 2595301) due to a safety issue.

Primark urgently recall Disney purse over serious chemical risk (Image: Kennedy News & Media)

“This was sold in Primark stores in the UK between March 2026 and June 2026.

“We have learned the product does not meet our usual high safety standards.

“The product has been found to contain phthalates above permitted levels, and this may cause harm to health and the environment.

“Please stop using the product immediately. Please return the product to any of our Primark stores. It’s not necessary to show proof of purchase.

“For more information, please email help.uk@help.primark.com.”

Phthalates are known to pose serious health risks, particularly to children, as they can potentially damage the reproductive system.

The recall was issued after the product was found to breach the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008 and the General Product Safety Regulations 2005.

A spokesperson for the Office for Product Safety & Standards said: “The product presents a serious chemical risk because it contains phthalates above permitted levels.

“Phthalates may harm the health of children, possibly causing damage to the reproductive system.

“The product doesn’t meet the requirements of the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008 or the General Product Safety Regulations 2005.

“The product has been recalled from end users by Primark.

“Owners should stop using the product immediately and keep it away from children.”

Primark has advised all customers to stop using the purse immediately and keep it out of reach of children.

The disease-causing bacteria can survive and even grow under refrigeration and can cause Listeriosis which can last up to several weeks depending on the severity.

Symptoms include fever, vomiting and headaches, with some cases even resulting in convulsions.

In rare cases, the infection can lead to meningitis.

Thursday 10th September – Waitrose recalls Waitrose Essential Pitted Black Olives because of contamination with Listeria monocytogenes #FoodAlert https://t.co/llFVJKMVtr pic.twitter.com/4FDahAdP1y

— Food Standards Agency (@foodgov) September 10, 2026

The affected products are 120g packs of Waitrose Essential Pitted Black Olives.

The olives impacted by the recall have a use by date of September 13, September 18 and September 27.

Some people are more vulnerable to listeria infections, including those over 65 years of age, pregnant women and their unborn babies, babies less than one month old and people with weakened immune systems.  

A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said: “Waitrose is recalling the above product. Point of sale notices will be displayed in all retail stores that are selling this product.

“These notices explain to customers why the product is being recalled and tell them what to do if they have bought the product.

“If you have bought the above product do not eat it. Instead, return it to your nearest Waitrose store where you will be given a full refund. For further information, please contact Waitrose Customer Care on 0800 188 884, Option 4.”

A Waitrose statement added: “We apologise that it has been necessary to recall this product and for the inconvenience caused.”

What is a product recall?

If there is a problem with a food product that means it should not be sold, then it might be ‘withdrawn’ (taken off the shelves) or ‘recalled’ (when customers are asked to return the product).

The FSA issues Product Withdrawal Information Notices and Product Recall Information Notices to let consumers and local authorities know about problems associated with food.

In some cases, a ‘Food Alert for Action’ is issued.

This provides local authorities with details of specific actions to be taken on behalf of consumers.

Cindy Crawford and her daughter Kaia Gerber were more akin to sisters as they posed together at a New York Fashion Week event on Thursday.

The mother and daughter duo are widely considered carbon copies of each other with their matching brown eyes, voluminous dark hair and model physiques.

Cindy, 60, cut a stylish figure in a black satin cami top and a matching midi skirt as she arrived to support Kaia, 25, at the opening of her Re/Done pop-up after launching a collection with the brand.

The fashion legend teamed her outfit with a leather jacket and matching boots as she arrived for the party after attending a Net-A-Porter event earlier in the evening.

Kaia let her collaboration with Re/Done do the talking by arriving for the party in a classic cropped T-shirt and flared jeans.

The model has previously praised the brand and said she’s owned one of their famous T-shirts for the past decade.

Kaia was also supported by her dad Rande as she celebrated the opening of her pop-up story with Re/Done

She told Vogue: ‘What I have always loved about Re/Done is that even as it’s grown, you never feel like you’re losing the personal, intimate experience of shopping there – which, to me, is a large part of the appeal.’

Cindy supported Kaia at her pop-up launch after admitting she embraces the commentary on her and Kaia’s resemblance but acknowledges how it could ‘sometimes suck’ for her daughter.

In an interview with PORTER magazine, Cindy explained: ‘It doesn’t annoy me at all. I love it, but I don’t know what it’s like to have a famous parent. I think, for Kaia, it’s just a part of who she is, and she’s going to have to handle it. 

‘There are perks that come with it, and then there are probably annoying things, and I have acknowledged that with her. I’m sure at times it sucks.’

Elsewhere in the chat, Cindy shared her gratitude for being able to work with her model daughter on incredible shoots over the years. 

She added: ‘We’ve had these special moments that, if I wasn’t in fashion, we wouldn’t have had. Like when we were both in the Versace show in 2017. 

‘I wasn’t there as Kaia’s mom, and she wasn’t there as my daughter. She was there, I was there, both for our own reasons, and there’ve been a few of those little moments. I love whenever I get to work with Kaia. It’s really fun.’

Cindy shares Kaia and son Presley, 27, with her husband Rande, 64, who she has been married to since 1998.

Cindy cut a stylish figure in a black satin cami top and a matching midi skirt as she arrived to support Kaia

The mother and daughter duo are widely considered carbon copies of each other with their matching brown eyes, voluminous dark hair and model physiques

The fashion legend teamed her outfit with a leather jacket and matching boots as she arrived for the party after attending a Net-A-Porter event earlier in the evening

Advertisement

Kaia let her collaboration with Re/Done do the talking by arriving for the party in a classic cropped T-shirt and flared jeans

The model has previously praised the brand and said she’s owned one of their famous T-shirts for the past decade

Rande was seen leaving his daughter’s pop-up launch after supporting her with her new collection with the brand

Scout Willis was among the stars in attendance for the launch, and she even took to the stage to perform during the event

Advertisement

Hayes Warner channelled the 90s in a double denim outfit as she attended the bash

During her candid conversation, Cindy opened up about how her and Rande are learning to ‘redefine’ their 28-year marriage now their children have moved out. 

She said: ‘When you get married, you talk about what kind of family you want or where we’re going to live. 

‘But no one ever talks about what this phase looks like, empty nesting, because it’s so far away you can’t even imagine it. 

‘But it’s an opportunity for us to redefine our relationship. What do we want to do, do we want to travel, do we not want to travel? 

‘We haven’t answered those questions yet but we’re asking the questions – and it’s fun trying to figure that out together.’

The couple enjoy an off-the-radar lifestyle in their sprawling seven-acre lodge, named Gerber Point Lodge, in Ontario, Canada.

‘It’s a very unplugged place. We’ll work out on our dock, go in our sauna, jump in the lake, go on the boat and have what we call docktails, like a cocktail party but on the dock,’ she revealed.

There’s been a broad spectrum of reactions to the UK government’s decision to introduce a ban on trade in goods and services from illegal Israeli settlements. These have ranged from “it’s about time”, to “too little, too late” to “pathetic undergraduate politics” (this last from someone I was chatting to after the announcement was made on Tuesday).

But for anyone who has been watching the Occupied Palestinian Territories this year, the regular reports of illegal land grabs and violence enacted by some settler groups on Palestinians in the West Bank, many of whose families have lived there for generations, has been more than distressing. It’s easy to see why the Burnham government felt it needed to take action alongside 11 other countries.

But what was remarkable was the tone of Ed Miliband’s statement to the House of Commons. He spoke of “settler terrorism”, “ethnic cleansing”, the “unlawful” occupation of the West Bank and Israel’s “expansionist agenda via illegal settlements”. It’s a historic shift in tone and policy, writes Mohamed Ibrahim Hafez of Nottingham Trent University.

Hafez believes a key factor in the decision was an advisory opinion released by the International Court of Justice in July 2024 which ruled that Israel’s ongoing presence in the West Bank has no legal basis and confirmed that states have a duty not to support or facilitate the continuation of that situation. He says that the situation was made all the more urgent by the Netanyahu government’s approval of the controversial E1 settlement, which would effectively cut the West Bank in half and make a Palestinian state virtually impossible.

À lire aussi :
UK plan to sanction Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements is a historic shift in tone and policy

This is exactly the point of E1. Launching the plan in August 2025, Israel’s far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich said the development “buries the idea of a Palestinian state, and continues the many steps we are taking on the ground as part of the de facto sovereignty plan”.

Rory McCarthy, formerly The Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent, now a professor of politics and Islam at Durham University, has given us this detailed description of the E1 project, as well as a rundown on the massive and rapid expansion of illegal Israeli settler activity.

À lire aussi :
E1: the illegal settlement at the heart of the UK’s West Bank trade ban

Of course, the burning question is whether this ban can be enforced and whether it will bring any discernible benefit to the Palestinian people. To which the answers are: “with difficulty” and “it’s unlikely”, write Sarah Schiffling, Claire Hannibal and Rosanna Cole.

The three authors, experts in supply chains, ethical procurement and responsible sourcing, look at other attempts – some successful – to apply such sanctions. They conclude that not only is the ban fraught with difficulty but that it could actually hurt Palestinians trying to export their agricultural produce to western markets.

À lire aussi :
‘Blood olives’: the hurdles in enforcing UK’s ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements

German politics: where opposites attract

The success of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the state election in Saxony-Anhalt at the weekend had been widely predicted (not least by The Conversation). But it still came as quite a shock when the AfD outperformed expectations by capturing 43% of the vote in this small state in eastern Germany.

The party’s manifesto includes “deportation offensive” of refugees, closer ties with Russia and the prohibition of the Islamic call to prayer. Such measures seemed to attract a surge of support from people who had not previously voted, writes Ed Turner, an expert in German politics at Aston University.

Turner believes the AfD successfully rode a wave of anti-federal sentiment among Germans in the east who feel that reunification has made them into second-class citizens. He says the next election to watch will be on September 20 in Mecklenburg West Pomerania, also part of the former East Germany. The most recent polling there gives the AfD a healthy lead over the Social Democrats.

À lire aussi :
Germany: why the AfD won in Saxony-Anhalt – and what happens next

Germany’s mainstream political parties have long operated what they call a “firewall” to try to keep extremist parties out of any coalitions. Since its foundation in 2013, this has operated explicitly in relation to the AfD. But now it looks as if the AfD may have found a coalition partner. Interestingly it’s a party on the far left of the political spectrum, the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW).

The BSW won five seats last weekend, giving it enough to help push the AfD into power. BSW founder Sahra Wagenknecht has specifically stated she wants to “end this firewall idiocy”, while the party’s leader in Saxony has said “there are, of course, projects that we can very well imagine doing with the AfD”. One of these is action against immigration.

Sarah Wagner of Queens University Belfast charts the similarities and differences between two parties ostensibly on opposite extremes of Germany’s political spectrum.

À lire aussi :
Why a small leftist party may help the radical right to power in Germany

Why Donald Trump needs a better story on Iran

At a special Republican National Convention to promote the GOP’s chances ahead of November’s midterm elections, Donald Trump told supporters that the war in Iran was likely to last until after the poll – as would high gasoline prices.

With his party trailing the Democrats two months out, this is not necessarily the message Republican grandees were hoping for. But, as Ben Soodavar of King’s College London writes here, the US president has failed to establish a credible narrative for the war to offer the electorate.

Soodavar, an expert in the psychology of political decision-making in war, notes that with a conflict-averse Maga support base, the US president needs a story to maintain public support. His Republican predecessor George W Bush had such a story after 9/11 to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (even if the story proved to be fictitious and the wars eventually unsuccessful). Trump has no such story.

À lire aussi :
How Donald Trump’s war in Iran is failing the legitimacy test in the eyes of US voters

Meanwhile Iran grows ever more aggressive, launching attacks on US warships in the Persian Gulf and boasting that its new solid-fuel ballistic missile will give it the ability to “take action against any threat, even before it is carried out”. Tehran also asserts that a new agreement with Oman will give it control of traffic through the contested Strait of Hormuz.

Middle East experts Bamo Nouri, of the University of West London, and Inderjeet Parmar, of City University of London, believe that “these developments suggest that Iran is no longer simply responding to escalation – it is increasingly trying to drive it”. It is, they say, a new and potentially dangerous phase in the war.

À lire aussi :
Iran war: Tehran’s assertive rhetoric signals a new and dangerous phase in conflict

Remembering 9/11

Tomorrow marks 25 years since the devastating September 11 al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington. As part of The Conversation’s coverage of the anniversary, we asked Pete Fussey and Mark Maguire, authors of The Empty Watchtower: Counterterrorism After 9/11 to survey the security measures put in place since 2001 aimed at guarding against the repetition of such an outrage.

Worryingly, their research has found that more advanced technology is not necessarily the answer, particularly when fused on to human systems that remain fallible. The result is that a quarter of a century after 9/11 we remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

À lire aussi :
Twenty-five years after 9/11: an over-reliance on technology is leaving us vulnerable

It’s been the perfect start to the season for City and it got even better on Tuesday night when teenage sensation Ayyoub Bouaddi proved he is ready to help the Blues’ push for silverware.

It would be remiss to suggest a player who cost £85m was one for the future rather than the present, but clearly Bouaddi’s best years are ahead of him and he was always expected to take time to adapt to his new surroundings. If Tuesday night’s win in Porto was anything to go by, he has already done just that.

We want you to tell us whether you think Bouaddi should start this weekend. Let us know your thoughts below:

Perhaps the most significant way in which Burnham is trying to make boldness easier for his ministers is by encouraging them to press ahead with policies when there is a risk they will face a serious legal challenge.

The new attorney general, Ellie Reeves, has pared back rules introduced under Sir Keir which some ministers believed forced them to be over-cautious about legal risk, thereby slowing down or blocking new policies altogether.

Louise Haigh, Burnham’s deputy, has vowed to “strip out needless bureaucracy” from government more generally, citing an example of there being three public consultations between 2019 and 2023 on whether to microchip cats.

“If we can’t microchip cats without getting tied up in red tape, it should come as no surprise the public is losing faith that governments can get things done,” she said.

As Burnham moves into the next phase of his autumn, there is a recognition from some around him that he will need to produce some more significant policies to underpin his rhetoric.

Those in government familiar with early work on fleshing out his commitment to “public control” of essential services insist the direction of travel is truly radical.

Haigh is responsible for this, chairing a taskforce on how to reverse “over-privatisation” specifically of housing, water, energy and transport.

Burnham may offer more details on these policies at Labour’s conference, while he is likely to wait until after then to show his hand on whether he wants continuity or change when it comes to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s reforms to the legal immigration system – a much more divisive issue among Labour MPs.

And whatever their differences on policy, Labour MPs are united on one thing. The fundamental reason they installed a new prime minister was because many of them believed that continuing on the same path meant losing the next general election.

For them, a long-term improvement in Labour’s poll ratings would be the most important change of them all.

Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham all continue to work on new signings after the close of the summer window. Arsenal still have the likes of Julian Alvarez and Eli Junior Kroupi firmly in their sights, while they are also said to be targeting Nico Paz and Kenan Yildiz, in addition to scouting both Lucien Agoume and Kike Salas. Meanwhile, Mikel Arteta is believed to be very close to finalising a contract extension with the Gunners.