RAND published findings from three AI safety and cyber-misuse tabletop exercises with senior policymakers in Germany, the Netherlands, and France. The simulated crisis involved a frontier model exploited at scale for cyberattacks, followed by an open-weight competitor with similar capability and fewer safeguards.
RAND published findings from three AI safety and cyber-misuse tabletop exercises with senior policymakers in Germany, the Netherlands, and France.
The useful finding for understanding AI's impact is institutional: participants repeatedly struggled with when an AI-enabled cyber campaign becomes a national crisis, how governments can act when they have backed the model developer, how to evaluate risk without independent technical capacity, and how to govern open-weight models after capability diffusion.
Read the evidence behind this analysis. External links open in a new tab.
RAND Corporation
The European Commission has issued operational guidance for Article 50 of the AI Act before its transparency obligations begin applying on August 2, 2026. Providers must disclose when people are interacting with systems such as chatbots, agents, or avatars and make generative outputs detectable through machine-readable marking; deployers must disclose emotion-recognition or biometric-categorization uses and clearly label deepfakes and certain AI-generated public-interest text when it lacks human review or editorial control.
The NUS/Harbin-led team identifies a domain-specific form of generative-AI hallucination: molecular candidates can receive strong predicted binding scores while violating basic chemistry or producing physically impossible atomic arrangements. Its DrugRPG framework incorporates chemical-foundation-model priors and differentiable physical constraints during molecule generation, reducing severe steric clashes by 65.4% relative to the reported state-of-the-art baseline and increasing by 28.6% the share of generated candidates meeting combined potency, stability, and synthetic-feasibility criteria.
The authors warn that AI systems can amplify stale annotations, incorrect database relationships, inconsistent standards, and weak provenance when they continuously harvest scientific repositories that were designed as comparatively static resources. They extend the FAIR principles with COPE—Comparable, Organized, Predictive, and Engaged—calling for iterative updates, version tracking, uncertainty estimates, machine-actionable standards, and community validation whenever AI-supported analyses generate new knowledge.