top of page

Current Most Read

Elon Musk’s Bid to Acquire OpenAI: A Dangerous Power Grab?
UK Government Pressures Apple for Encrypted Data Access – Security Measure or Privacy Risk?
The Age of Anxiety: How Modern Tech is Making Us More Stressed

Devastation in Catcliffe: Storm Barbet Brings Flooding Woes

Writer's picture: Gregory DevineGregory Devine

Storm Barbet has come and battered the UK. Whilst you’ll have heard about flooding up in Scotland and around Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire hasn’t been given the same attention. It left residents feeling abandoned by the authorities.


Woman and man using a canoe during UK Flooding

Back in 2007, Catcliffe was devastated by flooding. I was only a young child, but I remember my own house flooding in the neighboring village, but we didn’t have it anywhere near as bad as Catcliffe. Following the floods, the Environment Agency and Rotherham Council spent £15 million on an anti-flooding scheme designed to protect several Rotherham villages from seeing the same devastation again.


The problem is it has happened again. It’s happened again and it's worse than before. Whilst other areas of Rotherham did flood, it managed to avoid most of the villages that had previously seen bad flooding in 2007. Catcliffe however wasn’t so lucky. On Saturday (21 Oct) 250 homes were evacuated as the River Rother burst its banks and the village found itself once again struck with disaster. As I’m writing this Catcliffe is still very much underwater. Most residents can’t get to their homes to begin assessing the damage, the water is still far too high.


Lanes flooding during UK storms

You can fully understand why residents are so angry. After what happened in 2007 this was never supposed to happen again, especially not so soon. People living in Catcliffe struggle to move out not just for sentimental reasons but because they simply can’t sell their houses. After these floods have hit again it’s going to be even harder. Flood defences were set up in Catcliffe but they evidently weren’t enough. Talking to some of my friends in Catcliffe it seems that flood barriers weren’t used correctly meaning the village, which is a natural floodplain, has been sacrificed once again. It’s simply not good enough and quite rightly they want the Environment Agency to do more.


Whilst the water level of the river is starting to drop the same cannot be said for the standing flood water. It will need pumping as it did in 2007 but that hasn’t started yet leaving residents even more frustrated. They literally cannot do anything about it. They can’t get to their homes to try and salvage anything. Once again South Yorkshire is left to fend for itself, but this is people's lives. A TV can be replaced but sentimental items can never be replaced.


Many people in Catcliffe will have already been struggling. These are people I went to school with, I know the Cost-of-Living Crisis was already an issue for many. Now with their homes destroyed too these people are desperate for help yet it doesn’t seem to be coming. I’m not saying the people of Catcliffe deserve special measures, they deserve the same measures that other areas of the country are getting. Over in Doncaster just 20 minutes away, sandbags were being delivered to protect the villages that have a high risk of flooding. Catcliffe didn’t get that.


The true impact of these floods won’t be truly known for a while yet but the people of Catcliffe deserve answers as to how this could be allowed to happen again.


Elon Musk’s Bid to Acquire OpenAI: A Dangerous Power Grab?

Elon Musk’s Bid to Acquire OpenAI: A Dangerous Power Grab?

12 February 2025

Connor Banks

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Elon Musk, the billionaire behind Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, has made an audacious $97.4 billion bid to acquire OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. This move, framed as a return to OpenAI’s non-profit origins, is widely seen as an attempt to consolidate even more power in the hands of Musk, whose growing influence within the U.S. government raises concerns about unchecked corporate control over artificial intelligence. Musk has long railed against OpenAI’s supposed deviation from its original mission, but in reality, this bid reeks of opportunism rather than altruistic desires.


Purple screen displaying "Introducing ChatGPT Plus" by OpenAI, with text about a pilot subscription for conversational AI. Green text and bars.

Elon Musk's Offer and OpenAI’s Response

Musk’s bid is backed by a consortium of investors, including Baron Capital Group, Valor Management, and Eight Partners VC. His stated goal is to bring OpenAI back to its original open-source, safety-focused AI development approach. However, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman swiftly rejected the offer, mocking Musk on social media and highlighting the hypocrisy of his sudden concern for OpenAI’s direction.


Altman responded with a direct statement: "No, thank you. But we will buy Twitter for $9.74 billion if you’re interested." This sarcastic retort not only dismissed Musk’s bid but also referenced Musk’s own tumultuous acquisition of Twitter (now X), which has been widely criticised for its erratic management and steep decline in value since Musk took control.


The truth is, Musk’s involvement with OpenAI was never about philanthropy. After co-founding the organisation, he left in 2018 when his attempts to take over leadership were rebuffed. Since then, he has aggressively criticised OpenAI while working to build his own competing AI company, xAI. Now, his attempt to purchase OpenAI seems more like a desperate bid to maintain relevance in the AI race rather than any genuine concern for the ethical development of artificial intelligence.


Musk’s Government Role: A Clear Conflict of Interest

In January 2025, Musk was appointed as a special government employee, leading the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration. This position grants him the power to shape federal regulations and policies, including those governing artificial intelligence. If he successfully takes over OpenAI, Musk would be in the unprecedented position of both owning one of the most powerful AI companies in the world and shaping the very laws that regulate it.


This clear conflict of interest is nothing short of alarming. With his control over DOGE, Musk could weaken regulatory oversight on AI safety while advancing his own corporate interests. His past behaviour, such as gutting Twitter’s moderation policies and prioritising his personal business empire over public responsibility, suggests that he is unlikely to use such power responsibly.


Why Musk’s Takeover is Dangerous

  • Unchecked AI Monopoly: OpenAI is a leader in artificial intelligence research. If Musk acquires it, he could suppress competing AI innovations while monopolising the most advanced AI models for his own ventures. His history of aggressively eliminating competition suggests he would not hesitate to turn OpenAI into a weaponised asset for his empire.

  • Commercialisation Over Ethics: Musk frequently denounces OpenAI for prioritising profits, yet his own companies are aggressively profit-driven. His AI startup, xAI, is already integrating its technology into his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). A Musk-owned OpenAI would likely prioritise revenue streams over genuine AI safety, contradicting his supposed concerns about ethical AI development.

  • Manipulating AI Regulation: Musk’s dual roles in business and government would give him extraordinary leverage over AI policy. He could push for deregulation that benefits his businesses, weakening necessary safeguards designed to prevent AI abuse and exploitation. This represents a profound threat to democratic oversight and technological ethics.


Deterioration of AI Research Transparency

While Musk preaches about open-source AI, he has a history of keeping key developments within Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI tightly controlled. Under his ownership, OpenAI could become more secretive, reducing transparency in AI research and hindering global cooperation on AI safety.


Regulatory and Legal Challenges

Given the blatant conflict of interest between Musk’s government role and his corporate ambitions, regulators must intervene. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice should investigate whether Musk’s bid violates antitrust laws. There are also potential national security risks, given AI’s increasing role in cybersecurity, defence, and misinformation control.


If Musk is allowed to acquire OpenAI, the repercussions could be catastrophic. AI development would become even more concentrated in the hands of a single, unaccountable billionaire with a track record of erratic decision-making and self-serving business practices.


The Bigger Picture: The Musk Empire Expands

Musk already wields enormous influence across multiple industries, from electric vehicles to space exploration to social media. His attempt to control OpenAI is not about altruism—it is about dominance. If successful, he would have an iron grip over the future of artificial intelligence, steering it in ways that serve his personal vision while sidelining competitors and regulatory oversight.


This would not just impact AI development; it would shape how society interacts with AI on a fundamental level, from automation in industries to political discourse and national security. Musk has demonstrated time and again that he is willing to put personal power over public good, and there is no reason to believe this situation would be any different.


Stopping the Takeover Before It’s Too Late

Elon Musk’s bid to acquire OpenAI is not about returning it to its non-profit roots. It is a power play, designed to give him unprecedented control over the future of artificial intelligence while weakening regulatory checks that could hold him accountable. His history of self-interest, government manipulation, and anti-competitive behaviour suggests that such a takeover would be disastrous for AI ethics, innovation, and public trust.


Regulators, lawmakers, and industry leaders must take immediate action to block this acquisition and ensure that AI development remains in the hands of those committed to ethical progress, not a billionaire seeking yet another empire to control.

bottom of page