Content warning for discussions of sexual violence and harassment.Usually asteroids are distant features of the cosmos, occasionally crashing down to Earth or threatening the planet.Not so for former Texas solicitor general Judd Stone, who's been accused of making the distant space rocks a focal point in violent and bizarre fantasies about a coworker that he regaled to other people.Needless to say, that's wildly inappropriate and unacceptable. As 404 Media reports, Stone has now resigned from his position after a damning letter aired the allegations, which involved — apologies in advance — a phallic asteroid used as a sexual implement, like some sort of grotesque riff on a Chuck Tingle book.According to a letter sent by Texas' first assistant attorney general Brent Webster, Stone — who had at the time taken a leave of absence to defend Texas attorney general Ken Paxton in his impeachment trial — joked during a 2023 lunching with other government employees about a "disturbing sexual fantasy" that involved a "cylindrical asteroid." During the debacle, Stone described using said asteroid to sexually assault Webster while his wife and children watched.That letter, which is five pages long and full of additional allegations of sexual harassment and lies Stone allegedly told, is replete with gory details about this case that we won't regale you with.What's striking to us at Futurism, however, is the "cylindrical asteroid" of it all. Where did Texas's now-former solicitor general get such an idea, and what could it mean about who he is as a person — and, more importantly, how did it affect the people he worked with?While we don't have answers to those first two, it's quite clear from the letter how Stone's gruesome asteroid "joke" affected him and his colleagues. Along with Webster's own concerns about Stone's violent state of mind and his fear that his family could be in danger, the assistant AG added that a female employee who had been present for that stomach-turning lunch discussion had been so upset by the topic that she excused herself — only to return to japes from others at the table who said she "couldn't handle people talking about dicks."That same woman "exhibited emotional distress" when recounting the anecdote to Webster, and also told him, through tears, that she had been sexually harassed on other occasions by Stone and was concerned about the way he treated women.When confronted with the sexual harassment allegations against him, Stone admitted to them all immediately, including the bizarre asteroid fantasy. He was, as 404 notes, given the grace to quit or be fired, and chose the former.More on Texas-based misogyny: In Leaked Text, Elon Musk Harangued Woman to Have as Many of His Babies as PossibleShare This Article

Earlier this month, the father of a wealthy cryptocurrency entrepreneur was abducted in Paris while walking his dog. The attackers, wearing balaclavas, forced him into a van, later severing one of his fingers and sending a video of the mutilation to his son alongside a demand for millions of euros in ransom. The incident joined a growing list of violent crimes in France linked to crypto wealth. Victims have included a prominent entrepreneur and his wife who were held hostage, a man doused in petrol, and a child targeted in an attempted abduction. As fear spreads within France’s crypto community, some industry figures are accusing the EU’s landmark digital asset regulations of exposing holders to greater risk. Their concerns centre on the transparency requirements, which could make it easier to track down crypto owners. However, other insiders argue that the EU rules make a convenient scapegoat. Stanislas Barthélemi, president of the French crypto lobbying group ADAN, told the New York Times this week that the rules may inadvertently have put holders in danger. By creating a traceable digital footprint, he said, criminals could potentially monitor blockchain activity to identify wealthy targets. Register Now Alexandre Stachchenko, director of strategy at French crypto exchange Paymium, echoed the concern. He said the industry “wants to be discrete and anonymous,” but EU law “tells us it’s criminal.” Yet others in the industry dispute the claim that the EU’s regulations have played a role in the surge in attacks. ‘Strategic deflection’ Marit Rødevand, CEO & co-founder of Norwegian anti-money laundering firm Strise, said there was “little evidence” of a connection between the union’s rules and crypto kidnappings.  “While it is easy for champions of crypto to postulate that the increased physical attacks on those operating in the space are a product of regulations, this is both reductive and a strategic deflection away from legitimate security concerns,” she said. According to Rødevand, it is just as likely that information about potential targets was accessed through hacks, social media exposure, or publicity. Many crypto entrepreneurs are also prominent influencers.  Christopher Whitehouse, a crypto expert and solicitor at London-based law firm RPC, also made no connection. Instead, he said those holding high amounts of cryptocurrency were “obvious targets.” “The recent surge in crypto-motivated kidnappings in France is alarming but not surprising,” Whitehouse told TNW.  He noted that cryptocurrencies have several features that make them attractive for ransom. They can be transferred instantly, are difficult to trace if moved by sophisticated criminals, and lack the safeguards of traditional bank accounts. Traditional currency, in contrast, can be tracked via serial numbers.  Exploiting human vulnerability The recent violence in France, while brutal, is also not anything new. According to data compiled by crypto security advocate Jameson Lopp, over 200 physical attacks against Bitcoin and cryptocurrency holders have been reported since 2014. Some have been fatal.   Matt Green, head of blockchain technology disputes at London law firm Lawrence Stephens, contends that the violence boils down to criminals exploiting the weakest link in the crypto chain: people.    “The only thing stopping criminals [from] gaining access is human error or force, so kidnapping aims to break down the integrity of that human-led security,” he told TNW. To protect themselves, some high-wealth crypto holders have beefed up their personal security, including hiring bodyguards.  Green suggests another layer of protection: multisignature wallets, a type of crypto wallet that requires multiple users to perform certain tasks, such as making transfers.  Just as some shops display signs saying no cash is kept on premises, crypto holders would do well to make it clear that a single individual cannot access funds, Green said. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.

Earlier this month, the father of a wealthy cryptocurrency entrepreneur was abducted in Paris while walking his dog. The attackers, wearing balaclavas, forced him into a van, later severing one of his fingers and sending a video of the mutilation to his son alongside a demand for millions of euros in ransom. The incident joined a growing list of violent crimes in France linked to crypto wealth. Victims have included a prominent entrepreneur and his wife who were held hostage, a man doused in petrol, and a child targeted in an attempted abduction. As fear spreads within France’s crypto community, some industry figures are accusing the EU’s landmark digital asset regulations of exposing holders to greater risk. Their concerns centre on the transparency requirements, which could make it easier to track down crypto owners. However, other insiders argue that the EU rules make a convenient scapegoat. Stanislas Barthélemi, president of the French crypto lobbying group ADAN, told the New York Times this week that the rules may inadvertently have put holders in danger. By creating a traceable digital footprint, he said, criminals could potentially monitor blockchain activity to identify wealthy targets. Alexandre Stachchenko, director of strategy at French crypto exchange Paymium, echoed the concern. He said the industry “wants to be discrete and anonymous,” but EU law “tells us it’s criminal.” Register Now Yet others in the industry dispute the claim that the EU’s regulations have played a role in the surge in attacks. ‘Strategic deflection’ Marit Rødevand, CEO & co-founder of Norwegian anti-money laundering firm Strise, said there was “little evidence” of a connection between the union’s rules and crypto kidnappings.  “While it is easy for champions of crypto to postulate that the increased physical attacks on those operating in the space are a product of regulations, this is both reductive and a strategic deflection away from legitimate security concerns,” she said. According to Rødevand, it is just as likely that information about potential targets was accessed through hacks, social media exposure, or publicity. Many crypto entrepreneurs are also prominent influencers.  Christopher Whitehouse, a crypto expert and solicitor at London-based law firm RPC, also made no connection. Instead, he said those holding high amounts of cryptocurrency were “obvious targets.” “The recent surge in crypto-motivated kidnappings in France is alarming but not surprising,” Whitehouse told TNW.  He noted that cryptocurrencies have several features that make them attractive for ransom. They can be transferred instantly, are difficult to trace if moved by sophisticated criminals, and lack the safeguards of traditional bank accounts. Traditional currency, in contrast, can be tracked via serial numbers.  Exploiting human vulnerability The recent violence in France, while brutal, is also not anything new. According to data compiled by crypto security advocate Jameson Lopp, over 200 physical attacks against Bitcoin and cryptocurrency holders have been reported since 2014. Some have been fatal.   Matt Green, head of blockchain technology disputes at London law firm Lawrence Stephens, contends that the violence boils down to criminals exploiting the weakest link in the crypto chain: people.    “The only thing stopping criminals [from] gaining access is human error or force, so kidnapping aims to break down the integrity of that human-led security,” he told TNW. To protect themselves, some high-wealth crypto holders have beefed up their personal security, including hiring bodyguards.  Green suggests another layer of protection: multisignature wallets, a type of crypto wallet that requires multiple users to perform certain tasks, such as making transfers.  Just as some shops display signs saying no cash is kept on premises, crypto holders would do well to make it clear that a single individual cannot access funds, Green said. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.

DOGE in court Trump admin tells Supreme Court: DOGE needs to do its work in secret DOJ complains of "sweeping, intrusive discovery" after DOGE refused FOIA requests. Jon Brodkin – May 21, 2025 5:08 pm | 88 A protest over DOGE's reductions to the federal workforce outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building on March 19, 2025 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images | Michael M. Santiago A protest over DOGE's reductions to the federal workforce outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building on March 19, 2025 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images | Michael M. Santiago Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Department of Justice today asked the Supreme Court to block a ruling that requires DOGE to provide information about its government cost-cutting operations as part of court-ordered discovery. President Trump's Justice Department sought an immediate halt to orders issued by US District Court for the District of Columbia. US Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the Department of Government Efficiency is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as a presidential advisory body and not an official "agency." The district court "ordered USDS [US Doge Service] to submit to sweeping, intrusive discovery just to determine if USDS is subject to FOIA in the first place," Sauer wrote. "That order turns FOIA on its head, effectively giving respondent a win on the merits of its FOIA suit under the guise of figuring out whether FOIA even applies. And that order clearly violates the separation of powers, subjecting a presidential advisory body to intrusive discovery and threatening the confidentiality and candor of its advice, putatively to address a legal question that never should have necessitated discovery in this case at all." The nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed FOIA requests seeking information about DOGE and sued after DOGE officials refused to provide the requested records. US District Judge Christopher Cooper has so far sided with CREW. Cooper decided in March that "USDS is likely covered by FOIA and that the public would be irreparably harmed by an indefinite delay in unearthing the records CREW seeks," ordering DOGE "to process CREW's request on an expedited timetable." Judge: DOGE is not just an advisor DOGE then asked the district court for a summary judgment in its favor, and CREW responded by filing a motion for expedited discovery "seeking information relevant to whether USDS wields substantial authority independent of the President and is therefore subject to FOIA." In an April 15 order, Cooper ruled that CREW is entitled to limited discovery into the question of whether DOGE is wielding authority sufficient to bring it within the purview of FOIA. Cooper hasn't yet ruled on the motion for summary judgment. "The structure of USDS and the scope of its authority are critical to determining whether the agency is 'wield[ing] substantial authority independently of the President,'" the judge wrote. "And the answers to those questions are unclear from the record." Trump's executive orders appear to support CREW's argument by suggesting "that USDS is exercising substantial independent authority," Cooper wrote. "As the Court already noted, the executive order establishing USDS 'to implement the President's DOGE Agenda' appears to give USDS the authority to carry out that agenda, 'not just to advise the President in doing so.'" Not satisfied with the outcome, the Trump administration tried to get Cooper's ruling overturned in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The appeals court ruled against DOGE last week. The appeals court temporarily stayed the district court order in April, but dissolved the stay on May 14 and denied the government's petition. "The government contends that the district court's order permitting narrow discovery impermissibly intrudes upon the President's constitutional prerogatives," the appeals court said. But "the discovery here is modest in scope and does not target the President or any close adviser personally. The government retains every conventional tool to raise privilege objections on the limited question-by-question basis foreseen here on a narrow and discrete ground." US argues for secrecy A three-judge panel at the appeals court was unswayed by the government's claim that this process is too burdensome. "Although the government protests that any such assertion of privilege would be burdensome, the only identified burdens are limited both by time and reach, covering as they do records within USDS's control generated since January 20," the ruling said. "It does not provide any specific details as to why accessing its own records or submitting to two depositions would pose an unbearable burden." Yesterday, the District Court set a discovery schedule requiring the government to produce all responsive documents within 14 days and complete depositions within 24 days. In its petition to the Supreme Court today, the Trump administration argued that DOGE's recommendations to the president should be kept secret: The district court's requirement that USDS turn over the substance of its recommendations—even when the recommendations were "purely advisory"—epitomizes the order's overbreadth and intrusiveness. The court's order compels USDS to identify every "federal agency contract, grant, lease or similar instrument that any DOGE employee or DOGE Team member recommended that federal agencies cancel or rescind," and every "federal agency employee or position that any DOGE employee or DOGE team member recommended" for termination or placement on administrative leave. Further, USDS must state "whether [each] recommendation was followed." It is difficult to imagine a more grievous intrusion and burden on a presidential advisory body. Providing recommendations is the core of what USDS does. Because USDS coordinates with agencies across the Executive Branch on an ongoing basis, that request requires USDS to review multitudes of discussions that USDS has had every day since the start of this Administration. And such information likely falls within the deliberative-process privilege almost by definition, as internal executive-branch recommendations are inherently "pre-decisional" and "deliberative." Lawsuit: “No meaningful transparency” into DOGE The US further said the discovery "is unnecessary to answer the legal question whether USDS qualifies as an 'agency' that is subject to FOIA," and is merely "a fishing expedition into USDS's advisory activities under the guise of determining whether USDS engages in non-advisory activities—an approach to discovery that would be improper in any circumstance." CREW, like others that have sued the government over DOGE's operations, says the entity exercises significant power without proper oversight and transparency. DOGE "has worked in the shadows—a cadre of largely unidentified actors, whose status as government employees is unclear, controlling major government functions with no oversight," CREW's lawsuit said. "USDS has provided no meaningful transparency into its operations or assurances that it is maintaining proper records of its unprecedented and legally dubious work." The Trump administration is fighting numerous DOGE-related lawsuits at multiple levels of the court system. Earlier this month, the administration asked the Supreme Court to restore DOGE's access to Social Security Administration records after losing on the issue in both a district court and appeals court. That request to the Supreme Court is pending. There was also a dispute over discovery when 14 states sued the federal government over Trump "delegat[ing] virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities." A federal judge ruled that the states could serve written discovery requests on Musk and DOGE, but the DC Circuit appeals court blocked the discovery order. In that case, appeals court judges said the lower-court judge should have ruled on a motion to dismiss before allowing discovery. Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 88 Comments

DOGE in court Trump admin tells Supreme Court: DOGE needs to do its work in secret DOJ complains of "sweeping, intrusive discovery" after DOGE refused FOIA requests. Jon Brodkin – May 21, 2025 5:08 pm | 73 A protest over DOGE's reductions to the federal workforce outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building on March 19, 2025 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images | Michael M. Santiago A protest over DOGE's reductions to the federal workforce outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building on March 19, 2025 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images | Michael M. Santiago Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Department of Justice today asked the Supreme Court to block a ruling that requires DOGE to provide information about its government cost-cutting operations as part of court-ordered discovery. President Trump's Justice Department sought an immediate halt to orders issued by US District Court for the District of Columbia. US Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the Department of Government Efficiency is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as a presidential advisory body and not an official "agency." The district court "ordered USDS [US Doge Service] to submit to sweeping, intrusive discovery just to determine if USDS is subject to FOIA in the first place," Sauer wrote. "That order turns FOIA on its head, effectively giving respondent a win on the merits of its FOIA suit under the guise of figuring out whether FOIA even applies. And that order clearly violates the separation of powers, subjecting a presidential advisory body to intrusive discovery and threatening the confidentiality and candor of its advice, putatively to address a legal question that never should have necessitated discovery in this case at all." The nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed FOIA requests seeking information about DOGE and sued after DOGE officials refused to provide the requested records. US District Judge Christopher Cooper has so far sided with CREW. Cooper decided in March that "USDS is likely covered by FOIA and that the public would be irreparably harmed by an indefinite delay in unearthing the records CREW seeks," ordering DOGE "to process CREW's request on an expedited timetable." Judge: DOGE is not just an advisor DOGE then asked the district court for a summary judgment in its favor, and CREW responded by filing a motion for expedited discovery "seeking information relevant to whether USDS wields substantial authority independent of the President and is therefore subject to FOIA." In an April 15 order, Cooper ruled that CREW is entitled to limited discovery into the question of whether DOGE is wielding authority sufficient to bring it within the purview of FOIA. Cooper hasn't yet ruled on the motion for summary judgment. "The structure of USDS and the scope of its authority are critical to determining whether the agency is 'wield[ing] substantial authority independently of the President,'" the judge wrote. "And the answers to those questions are unclear from the record." Trump's executive orders appear to support CREW's argument by suggesting "that USDS is exercising substantial independent authority," Cooper wrote. "As the Court already noted, the executive order establishing USDS 'to implement the President's DOGE Agenda' appears to give USDS the authority to carry out that agenda, 'not just to advise the President in doing so.'" Not satisfied with the outcome, the Trump administration tried to get Cooper's ruling overturned in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The appeals court ruled against DOGE last week. The appeals court temporarily stayed the district court order in April, but dissolved the stay on May 14 and denied the government's petition. "The government contends that the district court's order permitting narrow discovery impermissibly intrudes upon the President's constitutional prerogatives," the appeals court said. But "the discovery here is modest in scope and does not target the President or any close adviser personally. The government retains every conventional tool to raise privilege objections on the limited question-by-question basis foreseen here on a narrow and discrete ground." US argues for secrecy A three-judge panel at the appeals court was unswayed by the government's claim that this process is too burdensome. "Although the government protests that any such assertion of privilege would be burdensome, the only identified burdens are limited both by time and reach, covering as they do records within USDS's control generated since January 20," the ruling said. "It does not provide any specific details as to why accessing its own records or submitting to two depositions would pose an unbearable burden." Yesterday, the District Court set a discovery schedule requiring the government to produce all responsive documents within 14 days and complete depositions within 24 days. In its petition to the Supreme Court today, the Trump administration argued that DOGE's recommendations to the president should be kept secret: The district court's requirement that USDS turn over the substance of its recommendations—even when the recommendations were "purely advisory"—epitomizes the order's overbreadth and intrusiveness. The court's order compels USDS to identify every "federal agency contract, grant, lease or similar instrument that any DOGE employee or DOGE Team member recommended that federal agencies cancel or rescind," and every "federal agency employee or position that any DOGE employee or DOGE team member recommended" for termination or placement on administrative leave. Further, USDS must state "whether [each] recommendation was followed." It is difficult to imagine a more grievous intrusion and burden on a presidential advisory body. Providing recommendations is the core of what USDS does. Because USDS coordinates with agencies across the Executive Branch on an ongoing basis, that request requires USDS to review multitudes of discussions that USDS has had every day since the start of this Administration. And such information likely falls within the deliberative-process privilege almost by definition, as internal executive-branch recommendations are inherently "pre-decisional" and "deliberative." Lawsuit: “No meaningful transparency” into DOGE The US further said the discovery "is unnecessary to answer the legal question whether USDS qualifies as an 'agency' that is subject to FOIA," and is merely "a fishing expedition into USDS's advisory activities under the guise of determining whether USDS engages in non-advisory activities—an approach to discovery that would be improper in any circumstance." CREW, like others that have sued the government over DOGE's operations, says the entity exercises significant power without proper oversight and transparency. DOGE "has worked in the shadows—a cadre of largely unidentified actors, whose status as government employees is unclear, controlling major government functions with no oversight," CREW's lawsuit said. "USDS has provided no meaningful transparency into its operations or assurances that it is maintaining proper records of its unprecedented and legally dubious work." The Trump administration is fighting numerous DOGE-related lawsuits at multiple levels of the court system. Earlier this month, the administration asked the Supreme Court to restore DOGE's access to Social Security Administration records after losing on the issue in both a district court and appeals court. That request to the Supreme Court is pending. There was also a dispute over discovery when 14 states sued the federal government over Trump "delegat[ing] virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities." A federal judge ruled that the states could serve written discovery requests on Musk and DOGE, but the DC Circuit appeals court blocked the discovery order. In that case, appeals court judges said the lower-court judge should have ruled on a motion to dismiss before allowing discovery. Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 73 Comments

The Supreme Court reportedly observed that the issue of regulation for cryptocurrencies in the country must be taken up in consultation with experts. According to a Bar and Bench report, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh addressed the lack of crypto regulations in India. The observation was made during the hearing of a case linked to a rise in crypto frauds across multiple states. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati will reportedly submit the government's position on cryptocurrency by July.As per the report the bench emphasised need for both regulatory measures to govern the crypto sector and oversight.Justice Kant reportedly told the ASG that in the absence of regulations, courts have been facing practical challenges, with regard to crypto cases.For instance, the justices said were facing a difficulty in assessing if the plaintiff was the victim or victimiser in the crypto fraud case. For now, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been asked to complete the probe in this case by May 30.In November 2023, the Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking clear guidelines to oversee crypto trading in the country. That bench was headed by former Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud. At the time, the bench had deferred the petition blaming the petitioner for trying to seek bail from proceedings that were pending then.Between 2022 and 2025, India has gradually introduced layers of legislationsn to govern some parts of the crypto and Web3 sector.India has been taxing crypto gains by 30 percent since 2022. The finance ministry also levied one percent TDS on all crypto transactions in order to maintain a trail of crypto transactions, that are otherwise largely private and even anonymous.Crypto firms operating in the country have been mandated to comply with anti-money laundering rules and KYC collection guidelines. In addition, every firm offering services related to digital assets in the country have to obtain a registration from the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) to make their operations legal.A crypto discussion paper from the finance ministry is due for release. In February, RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra said that this discussion paper will bring more clarity around virtual digital assets in the nation.The discussion paper will guide the future of the country's cryptocurrency sector, Economic Affairs Secretary Ajay Seth had claimed in July 2024.Meanwhile, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman previously said that India's position on crypto is that they cannot be currencies.Former RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das had also expressed concerns around cryptocurrencies during the World Economic Forum last year, but the RBI's 2024 Financial Stability Report acknowledged the global expansion of digital financial systems and highlighted blockchain's significant implications for the financial sector.

Forward-thinking businesses – and even nations – are upskilling mid-career professionals to help them not only survive but prosper in the era of widespread enterprise artificial intelligence (AI). As businesses and public sector organisations adopt AI at a lightning pace, white-collar professions face huge disruption, not unlike that experienced by nineteenth century blue-collar workers. According to research by OpenAI and the University of Pennsylvania, roles that will be affected include accountants, legal assistants, financial analysts, journalists, translators and public relations professionals. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs published figures in March 2023 that spoke of 300 million jobs exposed to AI across all sectors. Although it’s a concept dating back decades, the widespread take-up of generative AI (GenAI) began around 2022 with the release of ChatGPT. It was a wake-up call for governments and businesses alike, which must prepare for inevitable disruption. According to Tram Anh Nguyen, co-founder of the centre for finance, technology and entrepreneurship (CFTE), people over the age of 40 in mid-career professional roles are the most at risk of major job disruption as businesses integrate AI into their operations. CFTE is a global education platform that specialises in training in the finance sector, including teaching AI in finance. Nguyen, who is also Global Women in AI chair, spent decades working in the finance sector in business roles, said: “AI is no longer a future concept. It’s here and it’s affecting everyone at every level.” But this does not mean professionals will be replaced if they are re-trained – and this does not just mean technical training. Training on AI for non-technical roles will encompass professionals learning underlying knowledge about AI, the AI tools available to them and the use cases for AI in their roles, said Nguyen. In its whitepaper titled The AI-fication of talents, CFTE said three groups of professionals will emerge. It reported that there will be: “mass displacement” of roles centred on execution which will be increasingly automated; “supercharged professionals” will emerge who use AI to expand scope and scale; while “creative disruptors” will be small group inventing new models, products and systems. Nguyen warned that the UK is behind in readying the workforce for AI. “We are not preparing people in the right way because the focus is not on adult education at scale,” she told Computer Weekly. She cited a project in Singapore which CFTE helped to design. It involves supporting mid-career transitions, particularly focusing on technology and finance sectors, while providing financial support to help people switching careers. All Singaporeans aged 40 and above received funds to refresh their skills, with a large proportion taking up IT-related courses in areas including artificial intelligence. Around 555,000 people participated in programmes supported by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) in 2024 and 520,000 in 2023, according to Singapore newspaper The Straits Times. These are significant numbers for Singapore, which has a population of around six million, but the same challenge is faced globally. One sector being heavily affected is financial services, which leads the way in AI innovation and investment. For example, Bloomberg Intelligence recently put the number of jobs set to be replaced by AI in the US finance sector – Wall Street specifically – at hundreds of thousands. CIOs questioned by the organisation expected 3% of their workforce to be cut on average. Around a quarter of respondents expect the workforce to be cut by between 5% and 10% as AI takes over roles, with the back and middle offices to be most affected. According to research by banking industry benchmarking firm Evident, AI-related roles could be the only “safe jobs” in the banking sector as financial organisations “relentlessly” press on with AI-led transformation. It’s banking industry report found that recruitment of AI development professionals grew by 6% in the last year, hiring of data engineers increased by 14%, and the number of AI and software implementation experts hired increased by 42%. But while the finance sector finds itself on the front-line of the AI revolution, the technology’s rapid spread goes way beyond. Bloomberg’s head of AI, Amanda Stent, recently told Computer Weekly in an interview that there has been “no revolution in history that has not led to job transformation”. “Some types of job change, some types of job go away,” they added. “But there’s also no revolution in history that hasn’t led to more jobs created overall, I think that is true with AI, which will augment a lot of people.” Stent said all workers, regardless of their roles, will have to learn to use AI: “We can teach people how to be effective users of AI without needing to know all that maths.” The legal sector is an example of a traditional industry adapting to AI. The UK regulator of solicitors, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, recently authorised the first law firm to provide legal services purely through AI. Mark Lewis, a lawyer at Stephenson Hardwood, specialised in technology, said most, “if not virtually all, serious law firms” are deploying AI and GenAI operationally. “Typical use cases include document review, analysis and summarisation, legal research, case research and predicting the outcomes of cases, reviewing and reporting on the application of regulations around the world, and, of course, in law firm back-office operations – for example, in client due diligence and acceptance.” But he added that AI is not “yet” causing “major disruption” in the legal sector: “As with talk of AI disrupting many sectors, including doing away with the work now done by paralegals, junior lawyers, and even senior lawyers, this hasn’t really happened yet in the legal markets here – or, I think, anywhere. “There is a good deal of the usual tech hype about it. No doubt AI will become integral to legal process and lawyering at all levels, but, as in many other sectors, even that is going to take time and the maturing of legal use cases.” He said firms are, however, preparing for the impact of AI: “We, like many firms, have made available to all our lawyers GenAI tools developed specifically for us, to be used within certain parameters and in accordance with our AI/GenAI policies. “We want our lawyers to use these GenAI tools, to become accustomed to the way it processes work, to understand its strengths and limitations, and to become expert in creating and refining prompts. “For me, there is an even more important – existential – point: the single biggest challenge is how we as a society learn to understand, live and work with AI. It should start as early as possible and continue through our lives.” In the IT sector, AI is a huge business opportunity, but the technology is also transforming how suppliers operate. Workers in the IT sector will also have to learn to work with AI. Amrinder Singh, head of EMEA and APAC operations at Indian IT services firm Hexaware, told Computer Weekly that all the company’s staff, around 30,000, will be trained how to harness AI. He put it in startling terms the risks to workers that are not trained up. “We said that there is no future for single-skilled people,” he said. “Unless you are multi-skilled with domain understanding, as well as understanding how to use AI and technology, you will not survive.” Read more about GenAI