MON SIX

But you made it. AndMajor League Baseball's lovable slog should get more recognizable after this seemingly eternal opening weekend.

And while the sample produced was still remarkably small, there were still a few cogent data points, many of them apparently giving signal rather than noise.

With that, USA TODAY Sports takes a look at the winners and losers of opening weekend, with another week's worth of oversized flags and home openers upon us already:

Winners

The youth brigade

And to think No. 1 prospect Konnor Griffin's ticket to the minor leagues might have dimmed thestart of the season for prospect heads.

Nope, the kids showed out beyond anyone's wildest dreams right from the first pitches on Thursday – such as the oneKevin McGonigle smoked for a doubleseconds into his major league career, part of a four-hit debut for the Detroit Tigers.

Kevvy Mac (someone has to come up with a nickname, right?) added another hit and two more RBIs in his second game, starting at both third base and shortstop. An incredibly valuable piece already for the pennant-chasing Tigers.

And while he might make the most impact on the pennant race and, maybe, the playoffs, he was arguably not the most spectacular performer at their beautillion ball.

The dynamic JJ Wetherholt homered in his debut and notched a two-run walk-off hit in his second game and got another knock in his third as the rebuilding Cardinals took a series from Tampa Bay. The Mets' Carson Benge homered on the first pitch he saw of his MLB debut.

And while Chase DeLauter technically got his feet wet with a wild card series cameo in 2025, he scorched four homers and broke up a no-hitter in his first four games for Cleveland. Same with Owen Caissie, who enjoyed a cortado-length stay with the Cubs last summer, got traded to the Marlins and hit a walk-off two-run homer to sweep the Rockies in his Miami debut.

Konnor's gonna have to play catch-up.

A Yankees-Blue Jays pennant race repeat

The death of the tiebreaker game can take some shine off a great divisional race. So it was last year when the Blue Jays and Yankees each won 94 games and Toronto won the division based on head-to-head record.

With the Blue Jays significantly altered yet also nursing a World Series hangover and the Yankees in apparent danger of run-it-back syndrome, it was unclear how the AL East beasts might break from the gate in 2026.

Turns out they missed nary a beat.

Both clubs registered convincing sweeps against decent but unproven opponents, as the Blue Jays got leadoff homers and walk-off hits and 21 combined punchouts from Kevin Gausman and Dylan Cease to sweep the A's.

The Yankees, meanwhile, were in run-prevention mode in San Francisco, where the Giants are typically cooperative in such matters. Oh, Aaron Judge pounded a couple more home runs and Cam Schlittler looks very much like theplayoff beast he was last year. Yeah – they'll be fine 'til Carlos Rodón and Gerrit Cole step back on the scene.

The Pirates, trying to win

Sometimes, fans and media alike can get a little too caught up in off-season transactions. Yet for Pittsburgh Pirates fans, screaming at management to "Do Anything" winter after winter almost always fell on deaf ears.

Finally, the Pirates did something this winter. And lo and behold, the product appears healthier!

Offseason trade acquisition Brandon Lowe pounded a pair of home runs in their opening series against a very good Mets team. Free agent signee Ryan O'Hearn – no, not a Kyle Schwarber splash but a very good acquisition – had three hits and drove in the winning run in the 10thinning as they salvaged the final game of three.

Pittsburgh took New York to extra innings in Game 2, too, with Oneil Cruz's sun-splashed outfield debacle the only element making them non-competitive all weekend. Not to say they can stay with the Brewers and Cubs all summer.

Advertisement

But trying really is a lot more fun.

Japanese sluggers

They were the highest-profile hitters coming from foreign lands this winter, yet Kazuma Okamoto and Munetaka Murakami's combined value of their contracts didn't even reach $100 million. Contact concerns, and the worry that power in Japan would transfer to the big leagues.

Well, guess who's trailing only DeLauter in major league home runs?

Murakami went deep thrice in Milwaukee, the bright spot in a Chicago White Sox sweep at the hands of the Brewers. Meanwhile, Okamoto had four hits in 12 at-bats, homered himself and posted a .429 OBP in his first three games for the Toronto Blue Jays.

Not a total endorsement just yet of the $60 million Toronto committed to Okamoto or the $34 million the White Sox are paying Murakami. Yet it's a nice bit of relief for a pair of teams who rolled the dice and enjoyed positive first looks.

(Salaries in present-day value calculated by MLB Labor Relations Department, impacted by deferrals and signing bonuses)

1. Juan Soto, Mets - $61,875,000

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 2. Cody Bellinger, Yankees - $42,500,000

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 3. Bo Bichette, Mets - $42 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 3. Zack Wheeler, Phillies – $42 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 5. Vladimir Guerrero Jr., Blue Jays - $40,214,286

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 6. Aaron Judge, Yankees – $40 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 7. Anthony Rendon, Angels - $38,571,429

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 8. Jacob deGrom, Rangers - $38 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 9. Mike Trout, Angels – $37,116,667

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 10. Gerrit Cole, Yankees – $36,000,000

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 11. Jose Altuve, Astros – $33 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 11. Kyle Tucker, Dodgers - $33 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 13. Tyler Glasnow, Dodgers - $32,500,000

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 14. Francisco Lindor, Mets - $32,477,277

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 15. Tarik Skubal, Tigers – $32 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 16. Carlos Correa, Astros – $31,500,000

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 16. Corey Seager, Rangers - $31,500,000

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 18. Sonny Gray, Red Sox – $31 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 19. Corbin Burnes, Diamondbacks – $30,790,069

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 20. Giancarlo Stanton, Yankees - $29 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 21. Nathan Eovaldi, Rangers – $28,536,643

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 22. Shohei Ohtani, Dodgers – $28,206,684

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 23. Dansby Swanson, Cubs – $28 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 24. Carlos Rodon, Yankees – $27,833,333

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 25. Stephen Strasburg, Nationals (*retired) – $27,814,045

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 26. Bryce Harper, Phillies - $27,538,462

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 27. Trea Turner, Phillies – $27,272,727

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 28. Blake Snell, Dodgers - $27,152,056

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 29. Kris Bryant, Rockies - $27 million

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" /> 30. Yordan Alvarez, Astros - $26,833,333

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" />

See the top 30 highest paid players in MLB baseball

(Salaries in present-day value calculated by MLB Labor Relations Department, impacted by deferrals and signing bonuses)1. Juan Soto, Mets- $61,875,000

Losers

Rookie managers

Hey, not all of them. Beltways bros Craig Albernaz of Baltimore andBlake Butera of Washingtoneach won their first two games, the Nationals startling the Cubs at windy Wrigley Field.

Yet it was two surprise hires – relative greenhorns – who had a rough go of it.

You've surely heard aboutTony Vitello making the jumpfrom collegiate ball to the majors. It's a big deal and at the same time potentially not the big deal folks have made of it, so long as Tony V wins the usual 81 games near China Basin and doesn't look too weird doing it.

Well, about that…

The Giants scored just one run in three games against the mighty Yankees, a series that featured a fiery pregame speech and then perhaps a little too much panic after their second shutout loss.

"We're all major league players," pitcher Robbie Ray said when asked whether Vitello got them too wound up. "We can handle the ups and downs."

Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Angels' latest see-if-this-sticks move was tossing Kurt Suzuki in the dugout after no on-field coaching experience. And giving him a one-year contract, perhaps the most cynical maneuver for an aimless franchise keeping one eye on a potential lockout.

Unlike Vitello, Suzuki's weekend went south as a direct result of strategic button-pushing.

The Angels blew a six-run lead March 28 and a 6-4 lead a day later, his handling of starters Reid Detmers and Jack Kochanowicz and then the bullpen certainly questionable.

The Angels did come out of Houston with a split of four games. Yet this will still be a trial by fire for a guy who simply does not yet have the dugout reps.

NL West teams north and south of Vin Scully Way

They're a combined 1-11.

The Arizona Diamondbacks suffered three particularly soul-crushing losses to the Los Angeles Dodgers, who wore their gold-lined championship togs all weekend and simply kept hitting balls over the fence, the last off Will Smith's bat to cap the sweep.

The Giants were flattened. San Diego could not hang with the Tigers. And yes, the Rockies are winless, and it will only get more difficult for a 119-loss team that couldn't ring in a new year with even one victory in Miami.

CB Bucknor

No, ABS was not meant to humiliate. It just works out that way sometimes.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:MLB winners and losers: Top prospects shine, rookie managers flop

Wales Bosnia WCup Soccer

Bosnia and Herzegovina's 40-year-old forwardEdin Dzekohas been a club teammate of all three of Italy's starting defenders.

Dzeko played with Gianluca Mancini and Riccardo Calafiori while he was at Roma from 2015-21. Having then moved to Inter Milan, Dzeko teamed with Alessandro Bastoni on the squad that reached the 2023 Champions League final.

Italy and Inter winger Federico Dimarco contacted Dzeko to congratulate him after Bosnia beat Wales in a penalty shootout last week to set up Tuesday's playoff final against the four-time World Cup champion.

Dzeko's headed equalizer in the second half against Wales was his 73rd international goal. At 6-foot-4 (1.93 meters), Dzeko excels in the air — where Italy's defenders often struggle.

"Edin is a great player and a great person," Dimarco said. "I saw him on vacation over the summer and I've maintained a nice relationship with him."

Dimarco will have to momentarily set aside the relationship, though, with Italy desperate to avoid missing out on a third consecutive World Cup.

Italy was eliminated bySwedenandNorth Macedonia, respectively, in qualifying playoffs for the last two World Cups.

In last week's European playoff semifinals, Italy beat Northern Ireland 2-0.

Tuesdays' other playoff finals are: Sweden vs. Poland; Turkey vs. Kosovo; and Denmark vs. the Czech Republic.

Bosnia stadium

Bosnia has chosen to host the playoff in the 14,000-seat Bilino Polje Stadium in Zenica, which is surrounded by apartment towers overlooking the field.

The stadium's capacity will be reduced by 20% following punishment from UEFA for discriminatory and racist abuse by fans during Bosnia's game against Romania in November.

Italy is concerned over the status of the stadium's pitch after a recent snowfall in Bosnia.

"We're expecting a difficult atmosphere," Dimarco said. "But if we're able to remain in the right frame of mind for 95 minutes, I think we can get the result."

Advertisement

Italians caught cheering

Bosnia has seized upon video footage of Italy's players celebrating after seeing the victory over Wales — as if they considered Bosnia an easier opponent than Wales.

"It was an instinctive reaction," Dimarco said. "I certainly did not disrespect either Bosnia or Bosnians."

The referee for the match in Bosnia will be Clement Turpin of France, who was also in charge when Italy was beaten 1-0 at home by North Macedonia in the playoff semifinals four years ago.

Dimarco's production

Dimarco has been a consistent force on the left wing for Serie A leader Inter this season with six goals and 15 assists.

The only World Cup he's played in was the Under-20 version in 2017 when Italy finished third with Dimarco scoring in the quarterfinals.

"I've always said that goals and assists don't interest me unless they help the team achieve results," Dimarco said.

Esposito for Retegui?

Italy's attack got a boost in the second half against Northern Ireland when Pio Esposito replaced Mateo Retegui. Now the 20-year-old Esposito could start in Retegui's place alongside Moise Kean in Bosnia

Dimarco also plays with Esposito at Inter.

"He's a special kid," Dimarco said. "He's mature for his age and always gives 100% — both in matches and in training. … He just needs to be left alone and we shouldn't put too much pressure on him."

Italy's lost generation

The pressure is on Italy since an entire generation — basically anyone under 15 — has no memory of the last time the Azzurri played in the World Cup — an elimination loss to Uruguay in 2014 in Brazil mostly remembered for Luis Suarez's bite of Giorgio Chiellini's shoulder.

Just ask right winger Matteo Politano, who has won two Italian league titles at Napoli but at 32 has still never played in a World Cup.

"We all know what we're playing for," Politano said. "For me, and for a few of the other senior players, it's probably our last chance."

AP soccer:https://apnews.com/hub/soccer

The English musician and super producer, who has worked with the likes of Beyoncé, Rosalía, and Bon Iver, first collaborated with the divisive rapper formerly known as Kanye West on 2024'sVultures 1, a joint album with Ty Dolla Sign. Blake was attached to "This One Here," the song that closes outBully, as early as 2022. But on Sunday, a day after the album finally released, Blake opened up to fans on his social platformVaultabout his current status on the song.

"The way I pitched his vocals and constructed the track from his freestyle is partially there, majorly peppered with other newer vocal takes etc. But the spirit of my actual production is mostly absent other than that," he wrote in response to a fan comment alleging AI use in the song. "My original version is a completely different production in spirit. Happy for the fans but I've asked to be taken off the producer credits for now as I don't want to take credit for other people's work and this version isn't what I created with Ye."

Blake closed out his comment by noting, "It's not personal! I just hit a point where don't want to be credited on music where I can't affect the end result."

Entertainment Weeklyhas reached out to a representative for Ye for comment.

Ye's 12th studio album currently credits Blake with composition and lyrics on "This One Here," as well as production and engineering, per Spotify. The song also features rapper Don Toliver and WDNG Crshrs member Quentin Miller on the composition and lyrics credits, and was titled "SHOWTIME" when it was included on the scrapped projectWAR, meant as a collaborative album between Ye and Blake.

Advertisement

It is not clear whether AI was used in the production or engineering of "This One Here," though on Friday, Ye posted the album's tracklist onFacebookwith the caption, "BULLYON THE WAY NO AI."

Get your daily dose of entertainment news, celebrity updates, and what to watch with ourEW Dispatch newsletter.

In January, as the rollout toBullyreached its end, Ye published an essay in theWall Street Journalapologizing for months of blatantly antisemitic behavior.

"I lost touch with reality," the "Flashing Lights" singer explained, pointing to a frontal lobe injury" sustained from a 2002 car accident that ultimately led to a bipolar diagnosis.

Last year, West could not go a month without sharing widely criticized antisemitic views, such as praisingAdolf Hitler as "fresh"andselling T-shirts emblazoned with swastikas. But his antisemitic remarksdate back to at least 2022, two years before his first collaboration with Blake.

A two-time Grammy winner, Blake independently released his seventh studio album,Trying Times, on March 13.

Read the original article onEntertainment Weekly

Claudia Bachmann and Michael Kuboth from Cottbus Zoo transported the birds back to Lake Tumulus, the swans' traditional habitat within the historic park. The zoo had provided temporary shelter for the breeding pair when freezing temperatures made their natural water habitat uninhabitable this winter.

Advertisement

The homecoming coincides with the start of the breeding season, and the swans are already displaying mating behaviors that indicate they are preparing to nest.

In a nod to local history, the female swan has been given the official name "Lucie" in honor of Princess Lucie von Pückler. The naming celebrates what would have been the princess's 250th birthday in 2026, which the foundation is commemorating through a special "Women's Kingdom" themed year.

The trumpeter swan pair are considered permanent residents of Branitz Park, where they return annually to Lake Tumulus to raise their young. Trumpeters defend large territories together, and generally mate for life.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it.This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts:True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Dana Taylor:

One of the earliest headlines in the US-led war in Iran involved the bombing of a girl's primary school in Minab. Between 175 and 180 people were killed in the attack. Most of them, young girls. Meanwhile, adjacent to the school was a military compound of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Was AI to blame?

Hello, and welcome to USA TODAY's The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Monday, March 30th, 2026. The US-led war in Iran is the first global conflict where AI is playing a major role, both on the literal battlefield and on social media where the battle for hearts and minds is playing out. Are we entering a dangerous new evolution of warfare with AI? We're going to dig into all of it with two experts today. Joining me to discuss the nascent use of AI on the battlefields of Operation Epic Fury is Aalok Mehta, director of the Wadhwani AI Center for CSIS, the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Thanks so much for joining me on The Excerpt, Aalok.

Aalok Mehta:

Thanks for having me. I'm happy to be here.

Dana Taylor:

Start us out, if you would, with a 30,000-foot view of how AI is being deployed in the US-led war in Iran. What makes this conflict so different with regards to AI?

Aalok Mehta:

I think over time we've seen an evolution in the use of AI on autonomy in the battlefield. If you look at what is happening in Ukraine and Russia, we've seen lots of pioneering uses of AI in that war. And now, in Iran, we're seeing more of an evolution. If you think about it in terms of what the US is capable of, the best examples we have, we've seen some previews from Palantir of how the Maven smart system might work. And so, we're seeing that they've incorporated new generative AI technology into that system, and so the operations we're seeing in Iran by the US military are incorporating generative AI tools in the first instance where that's happening for the US military and in actual hot battlefield situation.

Dana Taylor:

There's an old terminology that I want to bring in here, and that's the kill chain, a chain of events that starts with identifying a target and ends with an attack. At what strategic point in the kill chain is AI being used?

Aalok Mehta:

AI is primarily being used, to the best of our understanding, as a tool that helps with integration of various types of information streams. You can think of AI tools as helping to bring together and synthesize lots of data from things like satellite imagery, troop telemetry, bring it together into an interface where then operators are able to query the system and help with things like conducting intelligence operations, finding gaps in intelligence, and finding various operational strategies to remedy intelligence gaps, brainstorming operational plans, and then coming up with strategic options for dealing with various battlefield situations.

Then you are able to use AI to task drones with humans involved in making decisions about where those attacks will happen, what kinds of targets are being struck. But right now, most of the use of AI is really in helping people in the military manage the enormous amount of information that's coming across their desk and be able to interface with that information using a more naturalistic type of way of interacting with it.

Dana Taylor:

Look, what guardrails are there for ensuring that a target is a legitimate military one and not, say a girls school, as happened on day one of the conflict?

Aalok Mehta:

The US military has a directive that oversees or provides guidance on how it's able to use autonomy in military systems. And this directive, DoD Directive 3000.09, lays out some of the ways that is appropriate and not appropriate for the military to use autonomous systems, essentially. And the key text here is that it requires an appropriate level of human judgment in decisions, especially decisions that have high consequences like use of lethal force on the battlefield.

What is happening is that the military almost certainly has human oversight over selection and actual execution of military strikes on targets. To the best of our understanding, this particular situation with the school was an issue, not with the particular use of AI in this instance, but issues with the underlying data. Essentially, I think the latest intelligence we have is that there were errors in the database that this site had previously been a military installation and its use had been transformed, it had been turned into a school. And our systems, our various data feeds had not fully incorporated that. And so, that persistent error in the data continued to make its way through the system, and it ultimately led to the circumstance in which the school was targeted.

Dana Taylor:

Developers of AI technology, including Claude and Maven, two of the most widely used AI tools, have voiced their concerns about the use of AI in warfare, specifically with regards to autonomous weapon systems versus decision support systems. Can you talk me through that distinction and how that plays out on the battlefield?

Aalok Mehta:

Yeah. The distinction here would be the difference between incorporating a bunch of information, selecting a target, and then telling a drone to attack that target. And that would involve low levels autonomy on the drone. You can tell it, "I want you to go here. I want you to drop your munitions in this location." And then the drone will use various low levels of autonomy to make sure that, as it's flying, it's able to navigate to the location, navigate around obstacles, make low level decisions to be able to continue on its flight path. That is a big difference. But between the type of autonomy in which you provide a much more high level or general guidance to a drone of, say, I want you to attack a strategic target, say attack enemy troop formations. And then the drone flies away, has its own sensors, looks at the battlefield, makes decisions about what it thinks is an enemy formation, and then engages without further human intervention and attack on that formation.

Now you have a lot more things that you want the drone to do, the requirements are much more precise, it has to make decisions that are a lot harder. This is the kind of distinction that the companies that you're talking about are worried about. Which is, as you give higher and higher level of abstraction in terms of the orders to drones, it's required to make more decisions. And our current AI tools, while very good, are not reliable in making those kinds of decisions in high stakes battlefields at the level of reliability that we really want when you're engaging in military operations.

Dana Taylor:

Is there an ethical line when it comes to using AI in warfare?

Aalok Mehta:

I think there are almost certainly going to be developments in how we think about the appropriate use of AI in warfare. Some of that will develop as we figure out what these AI tools are capable of. Not only that, but as we figure out various issues around implementation of AI and actual systems. It's one thing to think about AI in the abstract. It turns out that when you put AI in physical systems, there are all sorts of issues that you don't anticipate as you try to integrate AI with various physical components.

And I think we're going to be engaging in a learning process in which we understand more about the capabilities of AI systems. We learn more about the capabilities of those systems when they're integrated into a bigger module like an actual drone, and we get some experience about how they work in the real world. Then I do hope we have discussions within our government, between government and lawmakers about what is the appropriate use of military technology or AI and military technology, and where we might want to put some guardrails to make sure that we're protecting our troops, protecting our reputation as a country, ensuring that people trust AI technology as a whole.

Dana Taylor:

Look, when you think about the key role AI is playing in this war in Iran, what do you worry about most?

Aalok Mehta:

In terms of that, I think what I worry about is that we might start to deploy technology more quickly than our ability to absorb the lessons from using that technology. We see, time and time again, AI technology, ever since ChatGPT came out, has been evolving at a really rapid pace. It's overwhelming a lot of the systems and institutions that we've developed to help deal with the impacts of technology and society. And I'm worried that we'll see something similar happen in the military space where we'll engage in operations using AI, but we won't have the systems in place to be able to learn lessons from those, integrate lessons from different units, using AI in different ways, and then being able to roll that back up into higher level guidance or policy on an appropriate way to use AI and appropriate guardrails. I do hope that we take the time to learn lessons and synthesize information and really use that to inform how we think about AI development and integration in military operations.

Dana Taylor:

Really appreciate your time, Aalok. Thank you so much for hopping on The Excerpt.

Aalok Mehta:

Advertisement

Dana Taylor:

As I mentioned earlier, the other battle playing out in the war in Iran is the one for hearts and minds. It's taking place largely on social media. Today, I'm joined by USA TODAY producer and host, Zulekha Nathoo, who's breaking down for us how generative AI is having an impact on the war's narrative.

Zulekha Nathoo:

That's right, Dana. Social media is where generative AI is being used to a much greater extent than in previous conflicts, creating fake images and video at a rate that makes it nearly impossible to counter in real time. To talk more about that, I'm joined now by Mahsa Alimardani, who leads the technology threats and opportunities program at the human rights organization WITNESS. Thanks for joining me, Mahsa.

Mahsa Alimardani:

Thanks for having me.

Zulekha Nathoo:

Generative AI has been used extensively to create fabricated images and video that have flooded social media, and even some state-run media, since the beginning of this war. What are one or two examples of what you think have been the most widely spread or even dangerous fake images or videos of the war so far?

Mahsa Alimardani:

What's interesting is that we really are experiencing an unprecedented level of AI generated content by all the conflict actors. What we have been seeing is a prevalence of typical war propaganda now being mobilized in deceptive ways by Israel, by the Islamic Republic of Iran to promote their narratives. We've, of course, seen a lot of different examples of the Iranian state and affiliated social media accounts of state broadcasters show deceptive AI generated images of them attacking US spaces in the region that were fake or widely exaggerated. We've seen different types of content also come from Israeli sources showing certain things that don't exist, like AI generated images of military personnel and military equipment within schools.

The thing that it has been most corrosive, however, has been the fact that, not that we have this much content, which of course is a massive load on fact-checkers. The most corrosive aspect that we're seeing, it's the doubt that we have been seeing proliferate. The fact that it's very hard for people to trust what they see and what they believe. We have this kind of information environment in Iran, which is probably this laboratory of some of the worst excesses that you can see of information pollution, which is largely created by the fact that you have decades of information controls, media controls by the regime.

And of course you have the Iranian opposition and you have the Iranian diaspora. And all of these different actors have really been contributing to different sorts of biases and perceptions. And what we have really been seeing with the issue of doubt is evidence really being undermined. The inability to really, for a lot of Iranians inside of the country, to even believe that the civilian casualties that are being documented by the state are real. You have a regime that created this information environment that really has accelerated this concept of the liar's dividend. The liar's dividend is this term for this AI environment we are in where bad actors can use the accusation of AI to essentially deny the truth when it's inconvenient to them.

Zulekha Nathoo:

Then how does the use of AI generated imagery blur that line between psychological warfare and traditional battlefields reporting in the Iran war?

Mahsa Alimardani:

Well, we've always had war propaganda. What this really does is really blur the ability to know what is real and what is not. We have seen a massive acceleration in the capabilities of generative AI models. The different types of deception we've been seeing has really been unprecedented. My colleague, Shireen, and I actually did an analysis of people using even fake forensics analysis to then call content AI as well. And some of the fake forensics analysis was AI generated itself to lob those accusations as well.

It is this situation where the trust signals are really failing. We've had tech companies create a lot of these capabilities without fully assessing what kind of guardrails there needs to be in order not to have this kind of epistemic fracture of not knowing what to see and believe. It is this situation where you really do need the tech companies and the powers to be to step up and invest more in creating all of these different trust signals that we need. That's something that my team at WITNESS has been working on for a very long time in terms of what kind of labeling and what kind of providence and authenticity standards need to be embedded within these technologies, within the models that are being developed, and how the platforms need to be able to communicate this transparency. And the kinds of investments they need to be doing in terms of having human reviewers and fact-checkers.

Because, of course, if you've been following the trust and safety teams, the investments and fact checking across these platforms has been decimated over the past few years, making our information ecosystem especially vulnerable as this technology is accelerating at the same time.

Zulekha Nathoo:

Well, when altered or completely artificial images of destruction circulate faster than footage can be verified, who ultimately controls the war narrative?

Mahsa Alimardani:

Whoever really has the most resources and the most appeal. We really are seeing the situation where both sides have ways to appeal to certain sectors and populations. The Islamic Republic of Iran has long tried to present itself with this identity of representing the oppressed, representing the global majority. Of course, the irony being they are the biggest repressors of their own people, but this is the kind of identity that their propaganda likes to present to the world. And they've never had more raw material with the fact that they are under bombardment by the US and Israel, who have been these longtime boogeymen figures within their ideological and propaganda frameworks for over four decades. They are really playing to this advantage. It is this very toxic information environment you have where things like this are very quick to spread.

And especially, I work on this professionally, but also personally, I myself am Iranian in the diaspora and I see how this spread of AI-generated content, and even the doubt of AI-generated content, has created this just sense of uncertainty. And you can really see the real life impact of not having good and clear information even on the ground in the ways that people are making decisions about their safety, about how to evacuate.

Zulekha Nathoo:

What about the effects of repeated exposure to convincing AI-generated images? To what extent does being inundated with these fake images reshape international public perception? And then, does that influence wane if imagery is debunked? Do fact-checkers help quickly enough to be able to change people's minds about especially popular AI images out there?

Mahsa Alimardani:

Yeah. I think this has long existed even before AI. The lie travels much faster than the truth. Even when we have had well-known things that have been debunked, in my own networks I've seen it reshared. One really good example is, again, going to the first day of the war. The day before there was an AI generated image of military tanks in a schoolyard, creating this narrative that civilian locations as schools can be justifiable targets for bombings. And of course, the very next day, the first day of the war you had a school bombed. Even though very quickly, within the first 24 hours, that AI generated image was very easily debunked. You could see the Google AI Gemini watermark on that photo. People were still referencing that photo in replies to the news of the Minab school bombing.

Zulekha Nathoo:

Thank you so much for being with us, Mahsa.

Mahsa Alimardani:

Yes, thanks so much for having me.

Zulekha Nathoo:

Mahsa Alimardani is the associate director of the Technology Threats and Opportunities Program that the human rights organization WITNESS.

Dana Taylor:

And thank you, Zulekha, for joining us as well. Zulekha Nathoo is a USA TODAY producer and host with our special projects team.

Zulekha Nathoo:

Thanks for having me, Dana.

Dana Taylor:

Thanks to Kaely Monahan, Zulekha Nathoo, and Lamar Salter for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. I'll be back tomorrow morning with another episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Does AI targeting open the door to lethal errors in the kill chain? | The Excerpt

"These are the people who are suffering enough," Lizabeth Garza-García, 45, of Fort Worth, Texas, said of Transportation Security Administration agents as she was waiting in line at San Diego International Airport. "We don't want another 9/11. ... I'd like these people to get funded."

President Donald Trump signed a memo Friday directing DHS to pay TSA workers, who have missed paychecks during the agency shutdown that began Feb. 14. Employees are expected to receive most of their back pay starting Monday, according to a TSA email shared by an agency officer.

Trump signed the memo after the Houserebelled against a Senate-passed compromisethat would have funded all of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. A senior administration official said themoney will come fromthe One Big Beautiful Bill, the tax-cut and spending legislation Trump signed into law in July.

On why Trump didn't sign the back pay measure until now, a senior White House official said the administration conducted a "lengthy review process" that "identified a pathway" out of the crisis.

"Air travel in America was at a breaking point, and the president took decisive action in the face of a stalled Congress," the official said, blaming the shutdown on Democrats.

The impasse has led TSA workers — who also went through an extended government shutdown last year — to turn to the kindness offamily members, friends and food banksto get by. People have alsofaced hourslong wait times at airports, with security linesextending out the doors in some places.

Travelers at airports said they knew that while long lines were an annoyance, the federal workers had it much worse.

"They don't deserve to be without pay," said Frank Oberon, a San Diego resident returning home from a trip to Austin, Texas, with his wife, Ruth.

Ruth said she witnessed travelers giving gift cards to TSA agents in Austin, hoping they would help them endure without pay.

The couple vote Republican and support Trump, and they said the funding battle won't change that. Frank, a retired state corrections officer, said he doesn't blame Trump.

"It's really not his thing," he said, pointing to Congress' power over funding.

Advertisement

David Goodspeed, 59, of Alexandria, Virginia, who was flying out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Sunday, said: "Failure to fund the TSA is a dereliction of duty by the Congress. They've given too much power to the president. That funding resides in their hands. ... And Donald Trump has been pushing the Republican leadership in Congress to deny that funding."

Florida resident David Simmons, 63, who was also at National, said: "I blame them all. It's their job to work this out and they're not doing it."

"I blame the Democrats more if I had to pick a side. Withholding TSA money is not on target for the issue that they're protesting," he added. "I get that you don't like what ICE is doing. I'm not saying that's not a legitimate protest. I'm just saying they're killing the chicken to scare the monkey. They're attacking this group to get the change they want."

An NBC News pollconducted in October, during the last government shutdown, found that voters blamed Trump and congressional Republicans more for the impasse. But the share of voters who blamed Democrats was the highest compared with other shutdowns measured in NBC News polling over the last 30 years.

Democrats who spoke with NBC News put more blame on Trump, but frustration with Congress — and the federal government's inability to work together — was widespread.

Patricia Wright, 81, a Democrat from Setauket, New York, was in line at John F. Kennedy International Airport. She called the situation at the airports "ridiculous" and said it "seems to me like our president is responsible."

"Let's collaborate, let's cooperate, and let's get things back to normal," she said. "I think it's crazy that we're dealing with these lines on top of gas prices going up. It feels like things are falling apart."

Miraj Shaw-Hudson also blames Trump and said there was "no reason why these TSA agents shouldn't be getting paid for doing their jobs."

"We need everybody to vote, because this situation is not it," said Shaw-Hudson, 28, a Democrat from Oakland, California, who was also at JFK. "We need a new Congress, a new government. We need a new president. I don't have kids, but I wouldn't want to raise kids in this economy, and that's not even including the higher gas prices."

Montville, New Jersey, resident Aime Simeus, 49, said he wasn't sure who was at fault. Simeus is a Democrat but didn't vote in the 2024 election.

"I understand why the left doesn't want to sign the bill, though I think there are few actual leaders in both parties," he said. "Nobody wants to step up to the plate and do something. It's tough for the Democrats when the country is being run by Donald Trump and you're on the other side of the aisle and you don't want to agree with him, even though that might be messing things up."

Marshall Snyder, 65, of Tulsa, Oklahoma, said at National Airport: "They all need to look in the mirror. I can't believe 535 grown men and women [in the House and the Senate] can't come to an agreement."