Depression can play a direct role in developing type 2 diabetes even if you’re not overweight, researchers have discovered. 

Experts have long known that people with diabetes are around twice as likely to suffer depression compared with those without the condition. 

It is also well established that people with depression have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

But new research, funded by the charity Diabetes UK, has found seven genetic variants that contribute to both type 2 diabetes and depression.

Leading experts and charities today labelled the findings ‘hugely important’ and urged health officials to consider depression as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, alongside obesity, inactivity and a family history of the condition.

Researchers found, for the first time, that depression directly causes an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but not that diabetes causes depression.

The study found that only 36.5 per cent of the effect of depression on type 2 diabetes could be explained by obesity.

Obese people are significantly more likely to have type 2 diabetes than those of normal weight.

The researchers also noted seven genetic variants that contribute to both type 2 diabetes and depression.

These shared genes play a role in insulin secretion or inflammation in the brain, pancreas or fat tissue, with changes in these biological processes potentially explaining how depression increases type 2, they suggested.

While a direct cause was not found for diabetes causing depression, experts still believe that the burden of living with type 2 diabetes can be a factor in developing depression.

Dr Elizabeth Robertson, director of research at Diabetes UK, said: ‘This hugely important study gives us new insights into the links between genetics, type 2 diabetes and depression, indicating that depression can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes.

‘Type 2 diabetes is complex, with multiple risk factors – and previous research has shown that the condition is more common in people with depression.

‘This study gives us greater insight into why and indicates that depression should now be considered a risk factor for type 2.

‘This knowledge could help healthcare professionals to improve care and support for people with a history of depression and prevent more cases of type 2 diabetes.

‘We strongly encourage anyone with depression to know their risk of type 2 diabetes by completing Diabetes UK’s free online “know your risk” tool, so they can get the right support to reduce their risk and avoid type 2 diabetes.’

Inga Prokopenko, professor e-One Health and head of statistical multi-omics at the University of Surrey, who led the study, said: ‘Our discovery illuminates depression as a contributing cause of type 2 diabetes and could help to improve prevention efforts.

‘The findings are important for both individuals living with the conditions and healthcare providers, who should consider implementing additional examinations to help prevent type 2 diabetes onset in people suffering from depression.’

The study, published in Diabetes Care, used data from hundreds of thousands of people in the UK and Finland, including 19,344 people with type 2 diabetes, more than 5,000 people diagnosed with depression and 153,079 who self-reported depression.

Writing in the journal, researchers concluded: ‘Our results highlight the importance to prevent type 2 diabetes at the onset of depressive symptoms, and the need to maintain a healthy weight in the context of its effect on depression and type 2 diabetes comorbidity.’

Almost 4.3million people were living with diabetes in 2021/22, according to the latest figures for the UK.

And another 850,000 people have diabetes and are completely unaware of it.

This has concerned health officials as untreated type 2 diabetes can lead to complications including heart disease and strokes.

Approximately 90 per cent of diabetes cases are type 2 diabetes, which is linked with obesity and is typically diagnosed in middle age, rather than type 1 diabetes, a genetic condition usually identified early in life.

Everyday devices like smart speakers, doorbell cameras, TVs and even washing machines are spying on families, it has been revealed.

Research shows that standard household amenities are capturing and sharing private information with big tech firms such as Google, as well as Amazon, Facebook and TikTok.

It is believed the firms and their business partners are using the information to target people with advertising on smartphones and other devices.

The findings by Which? found companies appear to gather far more data than is needed for the product to function.

Google Nest smart home products, which include security cameras, smart speakers, doorbell cameras, heating control systems, gather a huge amount of location information on people who connect via smartphones using its Android operating system.

By contrast, these same Nest products gather much less information when the users connect to them via Apple’s iPhones.

Which? said: ‘It is not known why this additional data is collected. However, Google’s primary business is advertising and marketing, whereas Apple currently focuses on selling hardware.’

Experts looked at what information the devices require to set up an account, what data permissions their apps request and what activity marketing companies are tracking on people’s products.

Smart speakers are only supposed to listen when you want them to, but this is not always the extent of data collection.

For example, Bose smart speakers share user data with Meta, the parent company of Facebook.

Ezviz smart cameras and doorbells, which are sold by major retailers including Argos, had by far the most active tracking software.

This included sharing information with TikTok’s business marketing unit, as well as Pangle, which is a leading video advertising platform, Huawei, Google and Meta.

Every single smart camera and doorbell brand used tracking services from Google, while Blink and Ring also connected to parent company Amazon.

Which? said the spy and tracking functions are automatically activated by default. Consumers can opt out, but this requires changing the settings and could lead to aspects of the device or app no longer working.

Most smart TV menus are flooded with adverts, some personalised based on user data. While tracking is optional, Which? found that LG, Samsung and Sony bundle this up into an ‘accept all’ button.

LG wanted the most data of all the washing machine brands, including the customer’s name, date of birth, email, phone contact book, precise location and phone number.

Hoover wanted users’ contacts and phone numbers on Android devices. With Miele, tracking of precise location is enabled by default, and required to use its app.

A Which? survey found the data people were most concerned about being shared were their contacts and background location. This was followed by photos, phone number and precise location.

Under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), companies must be transparent about the data they collect and how it is processed. The data collected must also be relevant and limited to what is necessary for the processing to take place.

However, the reasons for taking information are often too broad for consumers to appreciate, with companies claiming ‘legitimate interests’.

Which? policy director Rocio Concha said: ‘Firms should not collect more data than they need to provide the service that’s on offer, particularly if they are going to bury this important information in lengthy terms and conditions.

‘The Information Commissioner’s Office should consider updating guidelines to better protect consumers from accidentally giving up huge swathes of their own data without realising.’

Manufacturers argued they are transparent with customers about the use of their data. They argued that the data collected is used to improve devices and services.

Google said: ‘Google fully complies with applicable privacy laws and provides transparency to our users regarding the data we collect and how we use it.’

Amazon said: ‘We design our products to protect our customers’ privacy and security and to put our customers in control of their experience.

‘We never sell their personal data, and we never stop working to keep their information safe. We use data responsibly to deliver what our customers expect: products that they love and are always getting better.’ Other firms contacted by Which? did not respond.

Millions of US taxpayer dollars are being sent to shady laboratories in China to fund cruel and dangerous experiments on animals.

Records show more than $15 million in government grants has funded animal experiments in foreign labs from 2013 to this year, despite concerns that dubious Chinese research may have started the Covid-19 pandemic.

Some of the US-sponsored research involved gathering dangerous avian flu viruses from China’s wet markets and infecting chickens, ducks, and guinea pigs to ‘supercharge’ the viruses and make them more transmissible.  

While not technically illegal, research in China is not subjected to the same stringent ethical and safety protocols in the US.

A previous watchdog oversight investigation found grant money sent to Chinese labs is often subject to little or no oversight.

From fiscal years 2021 to 2023, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), America’s primary agency for medical and public health research and response, awarded 15 grants totaling $3.6 million to institutions in China that perform experiments on animals.

In that same time, the NIH provided at least 92 sub-awards worth $12.5 million to institutions in China.

A sub-award allows another organization to perform some activities for the NIH grant under the NIH’s supervision. 

For example, in some instances, the NIH awarded a grant to an educational institute, which then sent money to Chinese entities performing animal experiments with no oversight.

Federal spending data from 2020 revealed the NIH spent an estimated $140 million on animal experiments in 29 foreign countries.

Watchdog group White Coat Waste Project has been fighting to force the government to stop sending American tax dollars overseas to fund virus and drug testing on animals.

The organization was the first to discover the NIH sent millions of dollars to unmonitored and dangerous animal experiments in China and Russia.

Georgia Tech sent $770,466 of a $2.7 million NIH grant to the Kremlin-linked Pavlov Institute of Physiology, which conducted experiments on cats.

According to the WCW Project, the experiments included implanting electrodes into the cats’ spines and muscles and removing parts of their brains. The felines were also locked in metal frames and forced to walk on treadmills. They were then killed and dissected.

Additionally, between 2018 and 2020, the University of Illinois gave approximately $123,550 of a $1.6 million NIH grant and an undisclosed amount from a USDA grant to the Kremlin-linked Institute of Cytology and Genetics to study the social behavior of silver foxes on a fur farm. The foxes were housed in small and unkempt cages and then killed and dissected. 

In the US, these experiments likely wouldn’t be legal under the guidelines the government has for using animals during experiments, which include providing proper veterinary care, using appropriate anesthetics to minimize harm and using humane euthanasia methods. 

Following the WCW Project’s findings, the group was successful in getting the Biden administration to defund all animal labs in Russia earlier this year. However, animal experiments using American money have continued in China.

Now, the group has teamed up with Rep. Lisa McClain, a Republican from Michigan, to introduce the bipartisan Accountability in Foreign Animals Research (AFAR) Act.

The act was first introduced in 2021 by McClain and has since gained support from other House members, as well as gotten the attention of members of the Senate. Now, it is being reintroduced in Congress. The legislation would prevent the NIH from conducting or supporting all research on vertebrate animals in foreign countries.

Vertebrate animals are those with spinal cords and bony or cartilaginous backbones, including all mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. 

‘Our tax dollars should never be sent to state-run labs in adversary nations like Russia and China that threaten our national security.

‘My AFAR Act would prohibit tax dollars from being shipped to animal testing labs in any countries that are deemed foreign adversaries’, McClain said in a statement.

Recent data compiled by the WCW Project found that between 2015 and 2023, at least seven US entities supplied a portion of their NIH grant money to labs in China performing animal experiments, totaling more than $3.3 million.

Between 2015 and 2018, Emory University provided Harbin Veterinary Research Institute, which houses one of China’s dangerous high-containment bioagent labs, $515,418 of a $38.6 million Health and Human Services contract for experiments on avian flu viruses.

Researchers collected avian flu viruses from China’s wet markets and injected them into guinea pigs, mice, chickens, and ducks. Taxpayer money was also used to supercharge flu viruses, making them more transmissible. The animals were later killed and dissected.

The study continued through July 2022, years into the Covid pandemic, despite concerns about the origins of the pandemic.

In addition to providing funds to Kremlin-backed labs, the University of Illinois also supplied the Institut Pasteur of Shanghai in 2017 with $149,832 of its $1.7 million NIH grant to infect mice with tuberculosis. The mice were killed after 50 days and had their lungs dissected.

The research ended in 2019.

From 2017 to 2018, the University of South Florida shipped more than $812,900 of a $28.9 million grant it was awarded from the NIH to several Chinese entities to create mutant malaria strains and inject them into mice. The mice were then fed to mosquitoes.

The research is set to continue until March 2024.

In 2019, Eastern Virginia Medical School sent $42,452 of a $35.5 million grant from the United States Agency for International Development to the Qichun County Zhangliang Digging Machine Business Department. The funds were used to test an experimental hepatitis and HIV drug on primates.

According to a description from USA Spending, which compiles information on grants, the study states that primates will be given a ‘treatment’ and then have their plasma analyzed.

The research ran until November 2021.

Also in 2019, the University of California-Irvine gave $216,000 of a $4.3 million NIH grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to perform experiments related to neuronal tracing. Experiments included drilling holes in the skulls of mice, rats, and tree shrews and injecting herpes viruses into their brains. The study states there was ‘rapid death of injected animals’ and viral infections.

It only recently concluded in January.

With one of the largest amounts supplied to Chinese animal experiment labs, the late Microsoft Co-founder Paul Allen’s Allen Institute sent nearly $1 million of its $64.7 million NIH grant to China’s Huazhong University of Science and Technology in 2021. The study, which only ended in January, was to create an atlas of mouse brain cells. Researchers killed and sliced the brains of eight-week-old mice to analyze and map them.

As recent as February 2023, the University of Southern California funneled more than $576,400 of its $1.9 million NIH grant to Peking University for experiments in which mice had holes drilled into their skulls and viruses injected into their brains. Scientists inserted electrodes in the animals’ brains and performed imaging experiments.

The research is set to run until 2025.

While the watchdog group revealed the millions of dollars being sent overseas, Americans may never know the exact amount or the specific experiments being conducted because of an NIH loophole exempting foreign grant recipients from following certain animal care guidelines. The WCW Project is currently suing the institution over this loophole. 

In a statement, senior vice president of the WCW Project, Justin Goodman said ‘shipping taxpayer dollars to animal testing labs in China, Russia and other adversarial nations is a recipe for disaster.

‘Our Worldwide Waste campaign has defunded the Wuhan lab, Putin’s kitten tests, and all Russian animal labs, but we’ve uncovered how dozens of animal labs in China are still eligible for more taxpayer money. Over 70 percent of taxpayers—Republicans and Democrats alike—oppose this reckless spending … Stop the money. Stop the madness’.

Urban foxes may be more bold than their country equivalents, but they are not necessarily any more clever.

Researchers spent just over a year studying wild foxes at 104 locations in England and Scotland, leaving the scavengers food in puzzling containers and filming whether they managed to open them.

They rated the locations on how rural or urban they were, based on features including roads, green space and the density of people living there.

The results showed foxes in urban areas were significantly braver, when it came to nudging, pulling, licking or biting containers with tasty treats like deli chicken, honey or dog biscuits inside them.

Their rural cousins were more reluctant to touch the containers.

But the urban foxes were no more likely to figure out how to get inside the containers, suggesting either their street smarts are not as highly developed as some people think – or they don’t bother to use them.

Dr Blake Morton, a psychologist and animal behaviourist who led the study from the University of Hull, said: ‘Foxes in towns and cities may not be as clever as we believe.

‘Or they may simply be lazy, as there is so much food lying around in urban areas, they have decided they don’t need to bother finding clever ways to get food which requires effort.

‘Either way, this challenges the long-standing belief that urban foxes are notorious scavengers of other human-made food containers, such as litter and the contents of outdoor bins.

‘Undeniably, litter and outdoor bins can provide at least some urban foxes the opportunity for an easy meal but, for many other foxes, our study shows that their behaviour is much more nuanced.’

Field mice have been found to behave more cleverly in urban areas than rural ones, so researchers wanted to understand if urban foxes, known to raid bird feeders and compost heaps, were also better at problem-solving.

They left out food which foxes could take freely from the ground, which the animals took in every instance.

But then they left out eight types of fox snack in containers which required actions like pulling open a lid with their mouth, pushing a stick with a paw or barging through a thin foil sheet.The study, published in Animal Behaviour, found that foxes in 96 out of 104 locations acknowledged the puzzles by turning their head towards them, but foxes from only 31 locations touched them.

Meanwhile foxes from just 12 locations gained access to the food, which was left out for around a fortnight on average

Although urban foxes were generally no more likely to problem-solve, foxes in London appeared to be the exception, although this is based on a small number of foxes so more research is needed.

Foxes in the capital may be better at problem-solving because they live in a more fast-paced environment, where they are constantly faced with new challenges.

Dr Morton said: ‘Foxes are renowned for thriving in cities, and our study suggests that bolder behaviour may help urban foxes adapt to such settings.

‘However, just because a fox lives in a city doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll engage in problem-solving.

‘This may mean they are not the wily ‘pests’ some people imagine, and won’t usually be a nuisance to us at all.’

A major cancer research project in memory of singer Sarah Harding will look for early signs of breast cancer in young women.

Harding, who was part of the pop group Girls Aloud, died from the disease aged 39 in 2021 and one of her final wishes was to find new ways of spotting breast cancer early when it is more treatable.

The new Breast Cancer Risk Assessment in Younger Women (Bcan-Ray) project will become one of the first in the world to identify which women are at risk of getting the disease in their 30s.

Around 2,300 women aged 39 and under are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK each year.

The project, which will run in Greater Manchester, is being made possible thanks to funding from the Christie Charity, Cancer Research UK and the Sarah Harding Breast Cancer Appeal, which is supported by Harding’s family, friends and Girls Aloud bandmates Cheryl Tweedy, Kimberley Walsh, Nadine Coyle and Nicola Roberts.

Speaking about the study before her death, Miss Harding said: ‘Research is incredibly important in the fight against cancer.

‘Although this research may not be in time to help me, this project is incredibly close to my heart as it may help women like me in the future.’

Miss Harding was treated at the Christie cancer hospital in Manchester.

Catherine Craven-Howe, 33, from Hale in south Manchester, is the first person to take part in the new trial.

She is studying medicine at Liverpool University while working as a healthcare assistant in an eating disorders unit.

Her first appointment included a low dose mammogram to assess her breast density and a saliva sample for genetic testing.

She said: ‘Although I don’t have breast cancer myself and I don’t have a history of it in my family, I know just how important clinical trials and research are.

‘I hope my participation will help devise a simple test to detect the likelihood of breast cancer for young women like me in the future.’

Eight to ten weeks after her appointment, Ms Craven-Howe will receive feedback about her risk of breast cancer.

Later, she will undertake a psychological impact questionnaire and receive a breast cancer risk statement at the end of the study, likely to be in 2025.

The project aims to examine the risk factors most commonly found in women diagnosed with breast cancer in their 30s with the hope of building a model to identify these women in the future.

Researchers hope their findings will enable all women to have a risk assessment for breast cancer when they reach the age of 30, with those deemed high risk given access to early screening and opportunities to prevent cancer developing.

The study will recruit 1,000 women aged between 30 and 39, including 250 with breast cancer but no family history of the disease.

The saliva samples will also help experts from the Christie and Cancer Research UK establish which types and patterns of genes are implicated in cancer with a view to developing personalised risk scores.

These can be combined with other breast cancer risk factors such as when a woman’s periods started, alcohol intake and use of the contraceptive pill.

The density of breast tissue may also play a part in the level of risk of getting the disease.

Miss Harding’s consultant, Dr Sacha Howell, who is leading the Bcan-Ray study, said: ‘Sarah spoke to me many times about breast cancer research and was really keen for more to be done to find out why young women are being diagnosed without any other family members having been affected by the disease.

‘There are too many young women in their 30s like Sarah tragically dying from breast cancer and we need to find out how we can more accurately identify those in whom it will develop.

‘Currently the only indicator we have is based on family history but this only helps predict one third of cases.

‘While there is research available in the over-40s, this will be the first study in young women.

‘With breast cancer still the leading cause of death in women under 50, we need to find ways to identify those most at risk and offer them breast screening to detect cancers earlier, when treatment is more likely to be successful.’

Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said: ‘Even in the darkest days of her cancer journey, Sarah Harding was a fearless advocate for research.

‘She bravely faced up to the pain the cancer caused her, undergoing treatment whilst thinking of ways to help other women in a similar position.

‘Since Sarah’s death, it has been inspiring to see people coming together in her memory to support life-saving research.

‘The money raised in Sarah’s name will go a long way towards diagnosing breast cancer earlier in younger women.

‘The Bcan-Ray project will fulfil Sarah’s dying wish to help women like her. By harnessing the power of cutting-edge science, we can look forward to the day where all women can live free from the fear of breast cancer.’

It comes after the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, thanked her social media followers today for their ‘kindness and support’ following her own breast cancer diagnosis.

She is now urging all people to get checked and said her diagnosis was a ‘wake up call’ to get ‘super fit’. 

The duchess, nicknamed Fergie, said she is ‘hugely thankful’ to hospital staff involved in the mammogram which detected her breast cancer and believes her experience ‘underlines the importance of regular screening’.

Sarah, 63, and Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, was diagnosed with an early form of the disease after a routine screening, her spokesman said, which had presented no symptoms.

After undergoing surgery at the private King Edward VII hospital in Marylebone, central London, she has been told her prognosis is good and she is recuperating at Windsor with her family.

In a statement, a spokesman said Sarah wanted to ‘express her immense gratitude to all the medical staff who have supported her in recent days’.

After Sarah Ferguson’s shock cancer diagnosis… here’s how YOU can check your breasts for cancer and the key signs to look out for

Sarah, Duchess of York, has undergone an operation to treat breast cancer, it has been revealed.

The 63-year-old duchess was diagnosed after a routine mammogram and has since undergone surgery, which her spokesperson said was successful.

Breast cancer is one of the most common forms of the disease in the UK, with around 55,000 women and 370 men being diagnosed with it each year, according to Breast Cancer Now. 

While breast cancer is highly treatable, it is crucial to spot it as early as possible, as the longer it goes without treatment the higher the risk it can pose.

Despite years of pleas from cancer charities, more than a third of women in the UK still do not regularly assess their breasts.

With thousands across the country unsure of how to spot the key signs of the potentially deadly cancer, here MailOnline gives a guide on how to check your breasts and other symptoms to look out for.

How and what should you check? 

Checking your breasts could help find signs of breast cancer early. This means you have a better chance of beating the disease, experts say.

It should be part of your monthly routine so you notice any unusual changes, charity CoppaFeel says.

But according to a YouGov survey commissioned by Breast Cancer Now, 39 per cent of women don’t bother.

More than half who do not check their breasts simply forget to, while 16 per cent do not know how to check. 

Dr Sarah Kayat, who, with the help of a topless cancer survivor, showed viewers on ITV’s This Morning how to perform a breast exam, said at-home breast exams save 1,300 lives in the UK each year.

You can check in the shower, when you are lying down in bed or in the mirror before you get dressed.  

Because breast tissue isn’t just found in your boobs, it’s also important that men and women check the tissue all the way up to their collarbone and underneath their armpit. 

There is no right or wrong way to check your breasts, as long as you know how your breasts usually look and feel, says the NHS.

But one of the most popular methods online involves using the pads of your fingers.  

Simply, rub and feel from top to bottom, feel in semi-circles and in a circular motion around your breast tissue to feel for any abnormalities, according to a guide shared in a blog post by the University of Nottingham. 

If you spot any changes you should get it checked out by your GP.  

Women aged between 50 and 70 should also be attending routine breast cancer screening. 

Check for… 

A lump or swelling

Using your fingers feel for lumps or swellings in the breast, upper armpit and chest.

A lump or an area of thickened breast tissue that doesn’t move easily is one of the first noticeable symptoms of breast cancer, says the NHS.

And according to the American Cancer Society, it’s the most common symptom. It says the lumps are often hard and painless.

But when feeling for unusual lumps and bumps it is important to know what is normal for you, experts say.

The NHS advises women get used to how their breasts feel at different times of the month. This is because some women have tender and lumpy breasts, near the armpit, around the time of their period.

The feel of your breasts can also change after the menopause as normal breasts can feel softer less firm and not as lumpy.

As well as checking for lumps, visible changes to the shape and size of the breast is also important.

Changes to the skin

Another common sign of breast cancer is a change the skin.

This can usually just be seen in the mirror and includes puckering or dimpling of the skin.

The dimpling skin is often compared to orange peel and can be associated with inflammatory breast cancer, which is a rare but aggressive form of cancer. 

A change in colour is also a warning sign to get checked out, says Breast Cancer Now.

If you notice your breast looks red or inflamed, it could be a sign of cancer.

Pain is only a symptom of breast cancer in rare cases, the NHS says. But if you feel pain or discomfort in one breast that doesn’t go away you should see your GP.

A nipple change

It’s important to not just check your breast tissue for abnormalities, but also your nipples, experts say.

Look for rashes or crusting around the nipple.

The NHS says this could look like eczema, crusting of the skin, scaly, itchy or red skin.

You should also check the position of your nipple, the NHS advises.

If it is being pulled in or starting to point in a different way to usual, it could be a sign of breast cancer.

Another warning sign to get checked out by your GP is discharge from either nipple.

Discharge is more common in ductal carcinoma in situ, which is an early form of breast cancer that starts in the milk ducts. 

Cancer Research says the discharge can also be blood stained.

Medical experts have issued a fresh call to halt the development of artificial intelligence (AI), warning it poses an ‘existential threat’ to people.

A team of five doctors and global health policy experts from across four continents said there were three ways in which the tech could wipe out humans.

First is the risk that AI will help amplify authoritarian tactics like surveillance and disinformation. ‘The ability of AI to rapidly clean, organise and analyse massive data sets consisting of personal data, including images collected by the increasingly ubiquitous presence of cameras,’ they say, could make it easier for authoritarian or totalitarian regimes to come to power and stay in power.

Second, the group warns that AI can accelerate mass murder via the expanded use of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS). 

And, lastly, the health experts expressed worry over the potential for severe economic devastation and human misery, as untold millions lose their livelihoods to those hard-working bots. ‘Projections of the speed and scale of job losses due to AI-driven automation,’ according to the authors, ‘range from tens to hundreds of millions over the coming decade.’

There commentary comes only weeks after over a thousand scientists, including John Hopfield from Princeton and Rachel Branson from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, signed a letter calling for a halt to AI research over similar concerns. 

Of course, today’s text-based AI resources, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, don’t exactly pose the apocalyptic threats that these health policy professionals have in mind. 

The experts – led by a physician with the International Institute for Global Health at United Nations University – said their most dire warnings applied to a highly advanced, and still theoretical category of artificial intelligence: self-improving general-purpose AI, or AGI.

AGI would be more capable of truly learning and modifying its own code to perform the wide range of tasks that only humans are capable of today. 

In their commentary, the health experts argue that such an AGI ‘could theoretically learn to bypass any constraints in its code and start developing its own purposes.’

‘There are scenarios where AGI could present a threat to humans, and possibly an existential threat,’ the experts wrote, ‘by intentionally or unintentionally causing harm directly or indirectly, by attacking or subjugating humans or by disrupting the systems or using up resources we depend on.’

While such a threat is likely to be decades away, the health policy experts’ commentary, published today in the British Medical Association journal BMJ Global Health, unpacked the myriad possibilities for abuse of today’s level of AI technology. 

Describing threats to ‘democracy, liberty and privacy,’ the authors described how governments and other large institutions might automate the complex tasks of mass surveillance and online digital disinformation programs to AI.

In the former case, they cited China’s Social Credit System as one example of a state tool to ‘control and oppress’ human populations. 

‘When combined with the rapidly improving ability to distort or misrepresent reality with deep fakes,’ the authors wrote in the latter case, ‘AI-driven information systems may further undermine democracy by causing a general breakdown in trust or by driving social division and conflict, with ensuing public health impacts.’

Describing threats posed to ‘peace and public safety,’ the authors detailed the development of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), killing machines like theT-800 Endoskeleton of the Terminator films. LAWS, these experts say, would be capable of locating, selecting, and engaging human targets all on their own.

‘Such weapons,’ they write, ‘could be cheaply mass-produced and relatively easily set up to kill at an industrial scale. For example, it is possible for a million tiny drones equipped with explosives, visual recognition capacity and autonomous navigational ability to be contained within a regular shipping container and programmed to kill.’

The researchers’ last broad threat category, ‘threats to work and livelihoods,’ drew attention to the likelihood of impoverishment and misery as ‘tens to hundreds of millions’ lose their jobs to the ‘widespread deployment of AI technology.’

‘While there would be many benefits from ending work that is repetitive, dangerous and unpleasant,’ these medical professionals wrote, ‘we already know that unemployment is strongly associated with adverse health outcomes and behaviour,’

Perhaps most alarming, nearly one-in-five professional AI experts appear to agree with them. 

The authors cited a survey of members of the AI society in which 18% of participants stated that they believed development of advanced AGI would be existentially catastrophic for humanity. 

Half of the members of the AI society surveyed predicted that AGI would likely start knocking on our door sometime between 2040 and 2065.

Researchers in Silicon Valley signed a letter issuing similar warnings last month. Their ranks included DeepAI founder Kevin Baragona, who told DailyMail.com: ‘It’s almost akin to a war between chimps and humans.

The humans obviously win since we’re far smarter and can leverage more advanced technology to defeat them.

‘If we’re like the chimps, then the AI will destroy us, or we’ll become enslaved to it.’