Paramount executives and a coalition of states that sued to block its $81 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery WBD -1.56%decrease; down pointing triangle spent the weekend hashing out the details of a possible settlement. Such an agreement would clear the way for a deal that would bring HBO, CBS, CNN, streaming services and famed movie studios under one owner.

Among the concessions the parties have discussed beyond the sizable production investment: a promise not to sell either studio lot and to stay in the state of California, the people said. The company had explored moving out of the state as the deal faced opposition.

The parties have also considered potential penalties if Paramount doesn’t make good on an earlier pledge to make 30 movies a year after the merger, including having to sell its stake in Miramax, known for such classic movies as “No Country for Old Men” and “Pulp Fiction,” the people familiar with the matter said.

Other measures the sides have explored include the sale of some cable channels and the creation of a board to ensure that CNN retains editorial independence, people with knowledge of the talks said. The network has been a political flashpoint throughout Paramount CEO David Ellison’s fight for Warner. Paramount had been discussing creating such an editorial board before the lawsuit.

A final deal hasn’t been reached, and it is unclear what terms the parties may ultimately agree to.

Ellison has spent the past year fighting to buy Warner in a megadeal that would expand his entertainment empire, but that has drawn opposition from some political and Hollywood figures.

A dozen Democratic-led states led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued in July to block the deal on antitrust grounds, arguing that the combination of Paramount and Warner would create too much concentration in the markets for theatrical films and cable television channels.

The Writers Guild of America sued over the merger, saying that the deal would eliminate jobs and career opportunities for Hollywood screenwriters.

About two dozen demonstrators gathered in front of the Elihu M. Harris State Office Building in downtown Oakland on Sunday evening to protest a potential settlement. Holding signs reading “Bonta: Don’t You Dare” and “Block the Megamerger,” they took turns giving speeches urging the attorney general to continue pressing the suit.

“Nothing has changed since he filed the case,” said Annie Leonard, co-founder of the nonprofit Committee for the First Amendment, which advocates for free expression. “He needs to stay as strong as he was in filing it.”

The two sides had come under pressure to settle the matter in recent months, including from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, movie theater chains and some Hollywood labor unions.

Paramount’s agreement with Warner also included a “ticking fee” with payments to Warner shareholders of roughly $650 million a quarter, or $7 million a day, beginning next month, until the transaction closes.

Paramount had asked a federal judge to require the states and the Writers Guild to put up a nearly $1.9 billion bond for challenging the acquisition, money that would go to the company if it ultimately won the case.

And if the assumptions behind this global-doomsday scenario are wrong, it could lead us to curb or regulate AI in ways that don’t address its real harms.

At the center of this debate is the claim that current AI systems might take over the job of training their next versions, a process called “recursive self-improvement.” Think of it like evolution on steroids—billions of years happening at light speed within vast AI supercomputers. Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei recently proposed a global agreement to slow down the pace of releasing new AI models, with the goal of delaying the arrival of recursive self-improvement.

“I don’t think we’re anywhere near ‘artificial general intelligence,’” says Melanie Mitchell, a professor at the nonprofit research group Santa Fe Institute who studies AI. She said AI is making impressive strides but thinks claims by engineers that they’ve achieved recursive self-improvement don’t stand up to scrutiny.

She is hardly alone. A recent paper by two dozen academics at Princeton, Stanford and other institutions found that even the most cutting-edge AIs are incapable of doing the original research required to advance the AI frontier.

Two of the authors involved in that paper also threw cold water on the idea that the Hugging Face swarm hack by OpenAI agents occurred because of a breakthrough in intelligence. The attack succeeded primarily because of a lack of basic technical guardrails, not an unmanageable explosion in AI capability, they wrote.

Yann LeCun, former chief AI scientist at Meta, posted that this analysis was “a welcome dose of sanity in an otherwise insane debate.”

OpenAI and Anthropic didn’t respond to several requests for comment.

The people who disagree with the doomers still consider AI to be dangerous, and point out that such systems don’t have to be particularly capable to be powerful. Some argue that AI should undergo regular evaluation by outsiders and that the companies that make it should be held responsible when their systems do harm. AI should also be treated the same as airplanes and elevators, and should be designed to do the least harm possible, they say.

“If you believe that technology is powerful enough to create novel, dangerous viruses, or to essentially take over the whole planet for some reason, then it must also be strong enough to create cures for cancer, to cure aging, to fix socio-economic or political problems,” says Christopher Canal, CEO of EquiStamp, a company that helps companies and governments evaluate AIs.

AI has shown an ability to rapidly advance because it is matching the abilities of humans who are constantly feeding it their knowledge. Sometimes it can recombine that knowledge and exceed what people have been capable of, through a kind of post-training known as reinforcement learning, as we’ve seen in mathematics.

Today’s LLMs are “models of knowledge” rather than actually intelligent, wrote Yi Ma, professor of AI at Hong Kong University.

Researchers at universities and commercial AI research labs in China wrote in a recent paper that autonomous, self-improving AI is likely to be a long way off, due to the sheer number of breakthroughs required. They also argue that humans will probably remain in the loop, supervising that process—and gating how fast it can occur.

Vals AI, a company that evaluates today’s AI models, maintains an RSI Index that benchmarks whether models can “do the research that builds the next model.” So far, no publicly released model is even close.

Yet Rayan Krishnan, CEO of Vals AI, says his team projects models will exceed humans’ ability to improve the next generation of AIs by August 2027, or sooner, and at that point could start building their successors all on their own.

“Once we get to recursive self-improvement, the fear is that all bets are off,” he says. “You could end up with a ‘fast takeoff’ situation, where the models quickly acquire skills and eclipse humans across every possible domain.”

In a reply to the resignation tweet heard round the world from Jacob Coxon, another Anthropic engineer declared his belief that those odds were at least 10% over the next decade. Many others in the industry chimed in to say they thought the percentage was even higher.

Some who argue the end is nigh say they calculate their personal p(doom) based on a chain of conditional probabilities—a bit like the Drake equation for calculating the likelihood of intelligent alien life. Since all those probabilities are based on speculation, estimates range from 0% to nearly 100%. Many land around 10%.

“The weird thing is that if you go back and look at the predictions on this over the last 10 years or more, it’s always been 10%—it’s just a nice round number,” says Mitchell. “I think it’s all vibes, and there’s no actual evidence or calculation.”

One argument against worrying about superintelligent AI is that the world is full of unlikely humanity-ending disasters, and trying to avert them all can make it impossible to prioritize, says Canal.

This has led AI experts and the policymakers who listen to them to propose remedies that don’t get at its real and present dangers.

AI companies’ proposals to “pace the frontier” aren’t addressing the problem in the right way, argues Stuart Russell, a computer-science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the president of the International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence.

“It’s like saying we’re driving toward the cliff at 60 miles per hour and we’re going to drive toward it at 40 miles per hour instead, and everything will be OK,” he says.

Russell and his peers have proposed that AI companies should have to meet the same standards that govern other areas of everyday life, from air travel and buildings to food and drugs. They highlight the “behavioral red lines” AI should not be allowed to cross. Breaking into other computer systems, stealing information or advising terrorists on how to build biological weapons are all illegal for a human to do, and should be illegal for companies’ AIs as well, he argues.

The challenge for AI companies in such a proposal, he adds, is that it would be a de facto ban on today’s advanced AI systems, since the companies behind them don’t know how to make them respect such boundaries all of the time.

Others have proposed something like the Food and Drug Administration, but for AI, but setting up a new agency has so far been a nonstarter in Congress. And some prominent voices in tech have said such a structure would give up America’s AI edge to China.

Given the bipartisan groundswell of support for curbing AI companies and their creations, however, that may soon change.

“The tech industry has had this mantra for decades that regulation is bad,” says Russell. “They don’t accept the liability for any harm, and they hide behind free speech. That, I think, has to change.”

When choosing a gift, it’s helpful to follow certain parameters: nothing too ostentatious, too hefty or too idiosyncratic in design. At the same time, thinking outside the box can show a deeper level of thoughtfulness. Here’s how to pull it off.

Keep gifts relatively small

Thom Bettridge, an editor and writer in New York, has a rule of thumb: he only buys gifts that are smaller than a breadbox, to minimize the space that they take up in hosts’ homes. He likes thoughtfully designed playing cards or cookies from a specialty bakery.

Imported sea salt also passes the breadbox test. It’s a gift that Los Angeles fashion designer Zoe Latta often gives to friends. She said fancy salt is always well received because it’s an elevated version of an everyday staple that most people use.

Another small gift—a favorite of Salima Boufelfel, a founder of vintage clothing stores in New York, Paris and Tucson, Ariz.—is Santa Maria Novella’s scented pomegranate, a terracotta vessel that smells like and resembles the fruit. “It scents closets and laundry rooms,” she said.

Don’t assume a host has everything

Part of being a good guest, according to Bettridge, ”is understanding subtle helpfulness.”

When New York City Ballet principal dancer Unity Phelan is invited on a group trip to someone’s home, she and her husband try to stop at a nearby market or farm stand to buy a bounty of fruit and vegetables that everyone can enjoy throughout the stay.

Even if your host seems to have it all, that isn’t a reason to forgo bringing a gift. “People think that ultrahigh net-worth people are buying everything and they are not,” said Kelly Bensimon, the model-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-real-estate-agent.

Thoughtful knickknacks are something that people of any social status can appreciate, Bensimon added. She likes giving dish towels made of fine European linen, which she often gets at Clic, the French homewares boutique with locations in California, New York City, the Hamptons and St. Barts.

Avoid strong aesthetics

“You want to find things that will blend in,” said Latta, the fashion designer. Clear glassware that can be easily mixed with a host’s other cups is a good option, she said.

Fresh flowers, another old standby, endure as a suitable host gift—if you get them from a local florist, not a corner store, and go with seasonal varieties. For a cleaner look, Kaelen Haworth, the owner of a luxury-clothing store in Toronto, likes choosing flowers in a single color or type, not an assortment.

If you’re going with flowers, sometimes it’s better to send them after the fact—for instance, if you’re invited on a private plane. Zachary Weiss, a writer in New York, likes to send orchids to his hosts well after landing. “It comes down to practicality,” he said.

Have a stash at the ready

It’s easy to leave gift-buying to the last minute. Stockpiling some trinkets will help you avoid the scramble.

When she’s not giving flowers, Haworth likes to give skin care—specifically from independent brands or products from other countries, which she buys in bulk when she travels. “I went to Greece and bought 15 bottles of a sunscreen they don’t have in the U.S.”

Sometimes, life gets in the way and grabbing wine might be the only alternative to showing up empty-handed. If you’re invited somewhere with your significant other, do as New York ceramist Shane Gabier does and get two bottles of wine—a gesture more generous than showing up with just one.

Today, phones are as common in a table-setting as napkins and silverware. If diners themselves aren’t pulling them out to check messages and social media, they’re likely in the background as others record Instagram videos or make FaceTime calls.

Many restaurants and patrons alike are pushing back against the shift that has turned collegial, communal spaces into places to watch TikTok while you eat. Here’s what some are doing—and what we can learn from them.

The phone lockup

Antagonist, a cocktail bar in Charlotte, N.C., is pretty antagonistic about phones. Upon entry, each customer receives a lockable Yondr pouch—the same bag some schools use to store students’ phones—that can only be opened by the staff.

“The main goal of our whole concept here really isn’t to burden anybody or take away their property,” Adam Horner, Antagonist’s general manager, said. “It’s essentially just to bring back a little slice of human connection that we all feel has been lost with technology.”

Even if your dinner destination doesn’t have the same rules, you can still borrow the basic idea. Keep your phone somewhere inconvenient or even mildly inaccessible: in your coat pocket, for instance, or your purse.

While Horner admits some patrons have arched an eyebrow at Antagonist’s policy, the benefit of having a place where people can be part of an organic social scene has far outweighed the potential loss of customers, he said. “I strongly encourage people to give it a chance, and sometimes they don’t and they go somewhere else.”

The airplane approach

The Edge, a local spot in Manhattan’s Harlem neighborhood, is a bit less rigid about phones. There’s no ban on them, but the restaurant doesn’t offer internet access. A sign at its bar reads: “No Wi-Fi. No Screens. Connect With Each Other.”

The directive is meant to encourage “stepping away from the digital and being present in the moment,” said Justine Masters, who owns The Edge with her sister Juliet.

Another way anyone with a smartphone can separate themselves from the internet: turn on Airplane mode. It may sound obvious, but it’s a simple and effective way to minimize phone-induced distractions while dining out.

The screen-free competition

For those wanting to break the grip of a bad habit, one tactic is to replace it with another better-for-you thrill. That’s the strategy behind the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A’s “cellphone coops.”

At a number of locations, diners can request a coop—a cardboard box—where they can put their phones while they eat. The goal is get groups to make it through an entire meal without checking their phones, with free ice cream as a reward. The coops even feature conversation prompts for the table.

You don’t need a cardboard coop to emulate the competition elsewhere—and if ice cream isn’t enough of a draw, treat the person who goes longest without using their phone to a free drink. Or make the loser pay the tip.

The point is to create rituals that result in discipline and, slowly, new habits.

What we gain from no-phone dining

The ubiquity of phones has not only eroded our manners, but also lessened the joys of bar and dining culture. One of Chris Hall’s favorite watering holes is The Saloon in Washington, D.C., a community-orientated beer bar with no televisions and a blanket ban on all phone use.

For him, it’s a bulwark against a bar culture that has become “very insular and not very fun.” He added that, over the years, he’s made at least a dozen friends at The Saloon. “You can talk to strangers in this place.”

Tina Vaughn and Chip Smith, the husband-and-wife owners of Eulalie, an upscale cloth-napkin bistro in Tribeca, also forbid phone use at their restaurant.

The policy is spelled out on a sign in the entryway and on the restaurant’s handwritten menus. Vaughn sees it as a way to help patrons combat the pressure to always be available.

“People want an excuse. They’re dying for someone to say, ‘You can get off that. It’s OK,’ ” she said. “The phone has become less a tool and more of a stress bomb, I feel, for so many.”