The King has hailed artificial intelligence (AI) as “one of the greatest technological leaps in the history of human endeavour” but warned of the urgent need to work together to combat its “significant risks”. In a video message for the opening session of the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park, the King stressed the need to make sure the technology remained “safe and secure”, and said the speed of its advancement could surpass even human understanding. He likened the “rapid rise of powerful artificial intelligence” to the world’s greatest scientific breakthroughs including the discovery of electricity and the splitting of the atom – and even the harnessing of fire. And he spoke of its potential to “transform life as we know it” for the better, possibly leading to cures for cancer and other diseases, and helping to create green energy. Charles, in footage recorded at Buckingham Palace before he left for his state visit to Kenya, said: “We are witnessing one of the greatest technological leaps in the history of human endeavour. “The rapid rise of powerful artificial intelligence is considered by many of the greatest thinkers of our age to be no less significant, no less important, than the discovery of electricity, the splitting of the atom, the creation of the world wide web, or even the harnessing of fire.” He added: “AI holds the potential to completely transform life as we know it to help us better treat, and perhaps even cure, conditions like cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s; to hasten our journey towards net zero and realise a new era of potentially limitless clean, green energy – even just to help us make our everyday lives a bit easier. “However, if we are to realise the untold benefits of AI, then we must work together on combating its significant risks too.” The AI summit sees representatives of nearly 30 countries, including the US, France and China, meeting with leading AI companies and civic society groups to discuss the risks of the emerging technology. Delegates have already agreed on a world-first statement – the “Bletchley declaration on AI safety” – it was announced on Wednesday. The King thanked those attending for laying the foundation for a consensus to ensure “this immensely powerful technology is, indeed, a force for good in this world”. Highlighting the need to keep on top of the technology, the King said: “AI continues to advance with ever greater speed towards models that some predict could surpass human abilities, even human understanding. “There is a clear imperative to ensure that this rapidly evolving technology remains safe and secure.” He said transitions such as AI always presented “profound challenges, especially in preparing for unintended consequences”. But Charles said: “It is incumbent on those with responsibility to meet these challenges: to protect people’s privacy and livelihoods, which are essential to both our economic and psychological well-being, to secure our democracies from harm, and to ensure the benefits of new technology are shared by all.” Describing the international community’s co-operation on climate change, the King added: “We must similarly address the risks presented by AI with a sense of urgency, unity and collective strength.” Read More Kamala Harris arrives in the UK ahead of AI safety summit Study finds ‘deepfakes’ from Ukraine war undermining trust in conflict footage More than 500 potential cyber attacks logged every second, BT says AI being used to create child abuse imagery, watchdog warns ChatGPT and other chatbots ‘can be tricked into making code for cyber attacks’ Tinder adds Matchmaker feature to let friends recommend potential dates

Having an overweight pet could cost owners £1,500 in vets’ bills per visit, claims data has revealed. Common health problems caused by excessive weight include cruciate ligament injuries, urinary tract disease, diabetes and arthritis. Addressing cruciate ligament injuries can mean swallowing a whopping bill of £1,578.28, and urinary tract disease costs for cats are skyrocketing to a jaw-dropping £752.06. Data from pet insurer ManyPets shows, on average, pet owners are forking out £682.65 for a trip to the vets for diabetes, while arthritis costs are coming to £476.61. However, 51 per cent of cat and dog owners are already concerned about their pets’ weight, a separate poll of 2,000 pet owners found. And nearly one in five (18 per cent) with a cat or dog could encounter these bills soon as they believe their pet already is carrying more weight than it should. With almost a fifth (19 per cent) admitting they are already shelling out more to tackle their pets’ fluctuating size. The research was commissioned as part of the ManyPets ‘Why Weight?’ report and launch of its Obesity Learning Hub. Steven Mendel, chief executive and co-founder of the pet insurer, said: “We understand it can be difficult to resist rewarding pets with extra treats, and heart-breaking to say no to them when they’re asking for more food. “But, with obesity associated health problems becoming more and more prevalent, we urge pet parents to think twice to save their pets. “We’re proud to have launched our Obesity Learning Hub to offer tips and veterinary approved advice for pet parents everywhere.” The research went on to find, with the rising cost of living still looming large for many pet owners, 22 per cent have been forced to make cutbacks to their pet’s lifestyle. Almost half (49 per cent) of these are now opting for lower quality brands of food, and 37 per cent have reduced their spend on healthcare. But 88 per cent believe they would be able to recognise the signs a pet is potentially getting to an unhealthy weight, yet only 31 per cent regularly keep an eye on their pet’s weight. Moreover,39 per cent will only visit the vets in an emergency – all of which point to an increase in weight going unchecked. In a bid to help keep weight down, 76 per cent do try to keep their four-legged friends as active as possible, while 75 per cent limit the number of treats or table scraps they give out. The study, carried out via OnePoll, found of those with an overweight pet, 22 per cent feel as if their cat or dog is ‘always hungry’. While a puzzled 19 per cent scratch their heads over their pet’s weight as they don’t think they eat an excessive amount. Steven Mendel added: “While many pet owners believe it should be straightforward to spot if their cat or dog is putting on weight – it’s often easier said than done. “In most cases, gaining weight is very gradual, meaning it can be trickier to identify - especially if pets are not attending the vet regularly. “We’re hopeful that with the right course of action and identifying the signs early, longer term pet health problems can be avoided in the future.” Read More Cat owner reunited with pet Tux after emotional Lyft ride saga Dogs’ facial markings could play a role in how close they are with owners Moment cat stuck inside boat’s hull after fire is rescued by firefighters Cat owner reunited with pet Tux after leaving her in a Lyft What you need to know about depression during menopause – as Carol Vorderman opens up Linda Evangelista describes relationship with Gerald Marie as a ‘MeToo marriage’

Manchester City's Premier League fixtures for the 2023/24 season have been announced. Here are the key dates for your diary, including when they play against the likes of Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool.

Justin Leonard is seeking his first PGA Tour Champions victory close to his old Texas home in the Senior PGA Championship

Former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are set to hold dueling campaign events in New Hampshire

A version of this story was published in February 2017 Diego Maradona was one of many players struck by the strange “uniqueness” of the occasion. He wasn’t to know the half of it. Because, the last and only other time that Napoli travelled to Real Madrid - back in the 1987-88 European Cup - it involved a hugely bad-tempered game that also saw a manager call a player a “mafioso” and took place in front of no fans and in an odd silence, due to crowd trouble the previous season from Real’s infamous Ultrasurs. It was hardly the setting for such a highly anticipated match between two heavyweights, not to mention the meeting of one of the greatest players ever and the most successful European Cup club ever. All of that will likely get replayed in the build-up to Napoli’s return to the Bernabeu on Wednesday, but none of it is what really makes that 1987 match unique. This was actually the game that changed European football. AC Milan owner Silvio Berlusconi was one of many watching, but he couldn’t share in the excitement around the fixture. He was aghast at the fact that two clubs like that could meet as early as the first round of the competition, as was happening here. It was hardly the stage to waste such a highly anticipated clash, or to waste one of the sides that would be eliminated but instead should have been making the competition all the more enticing later on. Berlusconi naturally feared the same could happen to his own club, but also had wider concerns. So, he set in motion his plans for a European super league. That didn’t happen, but the idea - and the threat - directly led to the creation of the Champions League, and the super-club-dominated era we have today. It is also a situation with several levels of irony. What is only the second ever tie between Real and Napoli is now seen as a novelty in a last-16 stage that has meetings of Barcelona-PSG and Arsenal-Bayern Munich both being replayed for the fourth time in just five years, a level of repetition that has dulled some of the Champions League’s intrigue and mystique. It was exactly the intrigue and a mystique of a rarely-played fixture coming in the competition’s old opening knock-out round, however, that led to that. What’s more, this growth of the Champions League has someway cannibalised some of those who were initially so behind super league ideas - from Rangers in Scotland to Liverpool and even Milan themselves. It’s certainly difficult not to wonder what Berlusconi now thinks about Milan’s meek drift away from the glamorous competition he helped create. You don’t have to wonder what Real and Napoli thought on being drawn against each other so early in 1987, though. They were stunned. Part of the reason was that the first-time Italian champions had no European pedigree, so were unseeded. Real’s pedigree was emphasised by the fact this was their 100th European Cup match at the Bernabeu, making it all the more incongruous that it would take place in front of the stadium’s empty stands. A two-game closed-doors order was the price for crowd trouble in the previous season’s semi-final against Bayern Munich. It was probably oddly fitting that the match that would prove so transformative for the quality, glamour and scope of the competition, however, was a poor game played in front of nobody. Described by Mundo Deportivo at the time as a “cold” occasion where the players were “orphaned” on the pitch, it did heat up between the teams. Both squads probably took Maradona’s demand to “go and batter them!” a bit too literally. Many kicks and apparently punches were traded, a bag of ice was thrown at Real manager Leo Beenhakker, and Napoli’s Salvatore Bagni later claimed the Dutch coach and some of his players had called him “mafioso”. Beenhakker did apologise for that before the second leg, again citing the “unique” circumstances of the game, but from the vantage point of a 2-0 victory. The goals summed up the level of performance. Michel scored from a penalty, Fernando De Napoli was responsible for an own goal, all to the sound of silence. Returning to Spain for the first since leaving Barcelona in 1984, Maradona had been marked out of the game, and blamed Napoli’s poor display on the pressure of a first appearance in the competition. “You don’t have to exaggerate,” he said. “We did not see the true Napoli, perhaps because of the responsibility of a debut in the European Cup.” It was exactly this kind of quirk, however, that so concerned Berlusconi. He just couldn’t see the logic in the competition’s best - and most televisually lucrative - teams potentially going out because of one bad night, one stroke of bad luck. It was precisely this Berlusconi feared for Milan, as he admitted in what would prove a hugely prescient interview with World Soccer in 1991. Amid predictions about the decline of international football and how European Union regulations would completely condition the continental game, the mogul came out with the following: “The European Cup has become a historical anachronism. It is economic nonsense that a club such as Milan might be eliminated in the first round. It is not modern thinking.” Berlusconi had shown a lot of very modern thinking, particularly by football’s conservative standards, since taking over Milan in 1986. Though always a fan of the club, he saw them as one arm of his business empire. Berlusconi made little secret of his plans to use both the Rossoneri brand and his media company Mediaset together to maximise both. Having already revolutionised broadcasting in Italy with the way his innovative approach to regional stations evolved into the country’s first national private TV station in Canale 5, he had similar plans for football. Berlusconi felt the sport was utterly wasting its potential in this area, and not at all reaching a potential pay-TV audience of millions and beyond. He thought it absurd that the biggest clubs in a sport that involved so many popular stadium events were not regularly meeting in glamorously lucrative matches. Martin Schoots is now a prominent European agent representing players such as Christian Eriksen, but was then a journalist primarily covering the three Dutch stars at Milan - Marco van Basten, Ruud Gullit and Frank Rijkaard - and was always impressed with Berlusconi’s approach when they met. “He was a visionary,” Schoots says,” and very clear and convinced about what developments would come. His philosophy was that football was a spectacle.” Or, as was put by some of those close to Berlusconi, “the television spectacular world-wide” - and the potential audience for his Canale 5. Making the European Cup a super league was not quite a new idea, though. That had actually been creator Gabriel Hanot’s initial plan for the competition in 1955 in order to better reflect “rightful” champions than the nuances of knock-out football, but proved impractical with the travel and communication of the time. Liverpool had also come up with a discussion document suggesting mini-leagues in 1978, around the time they were drawn against Nottingham Forest in the first round, and that had been revived in 1984. No-one, however, had gone for it with the same force or sense of structure to it as Berlusconi. this Super League was based on merit, tradition and television - and therefore it was a league for big television markets Alex Flynn After initial moves with Real president Ramon Mendoza were rejected, the Italian businessman decided to commission a blueprint for a ‘European Television League’ in 1988. The man who ended up with that commission was Alex Fynn, then of Saatchi and Saatchi. A huge football supporter, Fynn had already given a talk at an event for the Rothman’s Football Yearbook called a ’10-point blueprint for football’, suggesting exactly a European super league. It was subsequently printed in the Times, and word got around. “A few weeks later, I got a call from the head of our Italian agency,” Fynn tells The Independent now. “He said ‘here’s the job you always wanted: design a super league for Berlusconi.’ And the reaction? “My reaction? My reaction was my head was turned, I was flattered, and I did what I thought he wanted - not necessarily what football needed. So this Super League was based on merit, tradition and television - and therefore it was a league for big television markets. I think it had a league of about 18 clubs and certainly two each from England, Italy, Spain… that was the plan.” It was a plan initially rejected by Uefa, but had still done its job. The idea was out there, as was the underlying threat of a possible breakaway and possible changes were now on the table. “He decided to publicise it and use it as a stalking horse and catalyst to support his argument,” Fynn says of Berlusconi. “I think it went further than that. When someone like Berlusconi has a plan for a breakaway European super league, even Uefa had to sit up and take notice. The underlying threat was this businessman might have the wherewithal to do what he says. In theory, breakaways aren’t tangible, because they need the sanctioning of Uefa and Fifa. So maybe he realised that and maybe all he was doing was to produce the plan to affect some sort of change that would benefit his club and his commercial business - which of course it did.” Uefa fundamentally realised the dilemma between trying to keep the big clubs happy and keeping their structures intact, and thereby had to strike a balance, setting a dynamic that would lead to the current situation - but keep tilting one way. In the autumn of 1991, at an extraordinary Uefa congress, the then 35 members voted in new proposals, this time primarily put drawn up by Mendoza and former Rangers secretary Campbell Ogilvie. The quarter-finals would be replaced by a group stage, and league systems would be part of the competition for the first time. Even more important than that structural change, though, Uefa contracted the marketing company TEAM to sell it. The competition would the next season become the Champions League - to create what Fynn describes one of international sport’s two “supreme branded events” along with the NFL, right down to the distinctive classical anthem - an exclusive ‘family’ of corporate sponsors were signed up, and TV packages would be sold to the highest bidder, based on market share. Big clubs from the leagues with the largest TV markets would earn more and more money, accumulating more and more political capital Crucially, Berlusconi’s broadcasting model had properly permeated club football for the first time. The European game’s governing body had adopted many of its principles, as would the Premier League and many of the continents major clubs, bringing huge finances into the game - but also greater disparities than ever before. Big clubs from the leagues with the largest TV markets would naturally earn more and more money, accumulating more and more political capital, to the point more and more changes to the Champions League were inevitable. Finally, with two of this week’s fixtures offering the clearest examples in Barca-PSG and Arsenal-Bayern, we have the regular “television spectaculars” Berlusconi so envisaged. He probably didn’t envisage them, however, without Milan. That team he created, however, might still be the most influential in history. Because, just as they were changing football on the pitch with Arrigo Sacchi’s tactical ideas, the club were also changing football off it through Berlusconi’s economic ideas. And, if it was fitting that the first leg of the Real-Napoli tie was so off-putting given the change that would follow, it was equally fitting the return would give a sign of what was to come; what was capable - both in terms of the event, and the takings. This truly was the “television spectacular” Berlusconi desired. In front of a raucous 82,231 crowd at Napoli’s San Paolo stadium, and with Brazilian star Careca back in the team after injury, the revenge-driven home side finally did what Maradona demanded and “battered” Real in the right way. If only for 44 enticingly intense minutes. That Real team never got beyond the semi-finals, and were the very next season hammered 5-0 by Milan in a historic landmark of a game Defender Giovanni Francini had set the occasion alight by making it 2-1 after just after the half-hour, and Napoli could have added many more before Careca - of all people - missed a fine chance on 40. Within four minutes, Emilio Butragueno had scored the decisive goal. Real were through. If history regularly repeats itself, it’s interesting how so many of the same debates do, too. In the aftermath of that game, Maradona’s European pedigree was questioned, while Butragueno’s clinical brilliance was widely praised. Neither would actually end up winning the European Cup, as that Real team never got beyond the semi-finals, and were the very next season hammered 5-0 by Milan in a historic landmark of a game. At the time, though, Real were convinced they were on the brink. They even celebrated that victory in an unusually ostentatious manner. Beenhakker was remarkably moved to declare a mere first-round win - for a club that had then won the competition six times - as “a result for history”. It was to prove exactly that, but not in the way he imagined. The future could already be imagined from Napoli’s earnings from the game. They received 10,000 million lira due to both ticket and television sales, estimated at that point to be a world record. The die had been cast - and is still rolling. The Champions League continues to gradually change according to the preferences of big clubs, if at a somewhat glacial pace. “The big clubs never have enough money,” Fynn says. “That’s why you can never satisfy them, whatever changes you make.” Right now, what generally happens is that we see a lot of the same clubs, and a lot of the same fixtures in the latter stages of the competition - to the point Real and Napoli is again a novelty. It is thereby a fixture that will forever remain unique. Read More Pep’s future and Premier League charges – Where next for Man City after treble? How Pep Guardiola can become the undisputed greatest manager Man City fans feel let down by Uefa’s ‘shambolic’ organisation of Istanbul final Football rumours: Wilfried Zaha eyes move to Paris St Germain The sporting weekend in pictures Pretty Woman makes Pep Guardiola’s day as Julia Roberts hails Man City champions

Fans have pushed the Fisher-Price Corn Popper into the National Toy Hall of Fame

U.S. gymnast Jordan Chiles has dreamed about being a flagbearer at a major sports event since she saw her friend Simone Biles do it at the Rio de Janeiro Olympics closing ceremony

Hong Kong's top court has ordered the city's government to set up a new framework to legally recognize the rights of same-sex couples in a partial victory for LGBTQ activists that stopped short of their demands for full marriage equality.

(Reuters) -Wells Fargo's profit rose in the third quarter as the U.S. lender benefited from customers paying higher interest on

There will be a reunion at the start of September. The pair who combined for the only Champions League-winning goal – penalty shootouts excluded – in Chelsea’s history will be together again. But not for a Chelsea game. When Kai Havertz, the 2021 scorer, and Mason Mount, his supplier, are due to share a pitch again, it is because Arsenal are hosting Manchester United. The pace of change at Stamford Bridge is so swift that, barely two years after Thomas Tuchel’s team triumphed in Porto, only three of the 14 men to take the field that day - Thiago Silva, Ben Chilwell and Reece James – are set to be at Chelsea next season. Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital can argue that the first of the departures, those of Antonio Rudiger and Andreas Christensen, in effect predated their arrival, but not the rest. Chelsea now seem to exist in a state of permanent revolution. If Mount’s exit ought to provide Chelsea with most grounds for regret – Havertz, in contrast, spent three seasons as an enigma – United’s new No. 7 reflects a third phenomenon at Stamford Bridge. If Barcelona spent the summer of 2022 pulling various levers to permit them to trade, Mount is part of Boehly’s third lever. The first two have the air of loopholes; or, at the least, unique circumstances. Part one was based on amortisation over extraordinarily long contracts, thus allowing them to spread the fees – in their accounts, anyway – over much of the next decade. It is a loophole Uefa are closing but Enzo Fernandez, Mykhailo Mudryk and Nicolas Jackson have deals until 2031, Benoit Badiashile, Malo Gusto, Noni Madueke and Andrey Santos contracts until 2030 and Wesley Fofana, David Datro Fofana and Christopher Nkunku are tied down until 2029. Ridiculously, Chelsea have 17 players whose deals last at least another five seasons. Part two of the masterplan involved selling to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps Boehly, the man who acted as though he was cleverer than everyone else for much of a year of rampant stupidity, deserves credit for recognising and capitalising on a new market when some of Chelsea’s rivals are struggling to dispose of unwanted players. Kalidou Koulibaly, Edouard Mendy and, albeit on a free transfer, N’Golo Kante have gone to a newly wealthy league; Hakim Ziyech and Romelu Lukaku could follow and, if Chelsea have their way, perhaps Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang will, too. But the third phase of the Boehly blueprint has entailed selling off the family silver. Letting Ruben Loftus-Cheek join AC Milan was understandable; Chelsea can lament what might have been if a huge talent had stayed fit but, at 27, he had only made 155 appearances for them. But Mount was different: Chelsea’s player of the year in two of the last three campaigns – a lazy trope he has had two bad campaigns shows ignorance – and a footballer who, along with Fernandez, James and Chilwell, looked among the best suited of their squad to Mauricio Pochettino’s demands, he should have been a Stamford Bridge lifer; maybe a future captain, possibly ending up with 500 or 600 appearances to his name. And yet over the last year Chelsea contrived to hire three managers and 18 players – plus bidding for dozens of others – and give several of their existing squad new deals without managing to extend Mount’s contract. It should have been one of the top priorities for the new regime; it did not feel that way and, while Chelsea can claim they had to sell the midfielder to prevent him from leaving on a free transfer, it has the air of a situation they created themselves. His sale was an indictment of their powerbrokers. They may deem it a triumph of negotiating, though, after forcing United to pay more than they wanted to. At an initial £55m, Mount has brought in one of the five biggest fees Chelsea have ever received. But from an accounting perspective, the key element is that it counts as “pure profit” in the books; sales of the homegrown are especially useful in that respect, particularly for a club who may face issues in their attempts to pass Financial Fair Play. It may point to the departures of Callum Hudson-Odoi and Ethan Ampadu, who arguably need moves, but also to those who do not: perhaps Trevoh Chalobah or Conor Gallagher or Armando Broja. It may be telling that Chelsea tried to send Gallagher to Everton in January. Remove the word “pure” and the profit part is still rare. Chelsea sold Mendy at a loss, two years after he was named the best goalkeeper in the world. They sold Koulibaly for half the amount they paid last summer. The £65m they recouped for Havertz may be more than anticipated, but it was still less than his purchase price. Mateo Kovacic only had a year left on his deal and is 29 but he, too, went for a smaller sum than he arrived for. Lukaku, Ziyech and Christian Pulisic, if they go, will bring in under half of a combined cost of almost £200m. That is certainly not all the fault of Boehly and Clearlake: in several cases, their fortunes were declining before the takeover though the chaos of the last year has often compounded that. Being displaced by dozens of new signings can deplete value still further, while Koulibaly and Aubameyang can now be written off as bad buys. And Boehly and Chelsea are trying to fund their trading – or at least negotiate Financial Fair Play – by flogging anything and anyone they inherited. They have surpassed many an expectation by bringing in around £200m already this summer. There may well be another half a dozen players leaving, perhaps swelling the sum towards £300m. But Chelsea’s outlay already stands at the best part of £700m in little over a year. Whether it leaves them with a stronger squad than in 2021 is a moot point: after all, they have gone from being Champions League winners to out of Europe altogether. But by the end of this transfer window, Boehly’s third lever may have exhausted its use. Chelsea might be running out of players to sell. And at some point, they may have to call upon a fourth prong: a distinctly old-fashioned one called trading well. It may involve seeking value for money when buying, rather than repeatedly paying way over the odds, and selling some of their signings for a profit. It could entail keeping players for several years, rather than having a revolving door. It may sound crazy to Boehly and co but Chelsea might have to try it. Read More Mason Mount says it was clear ‘several months ago’ he was not in Chelsea’s plans Chelsea not willing to listen to offers for Levi Colwill amid continued interest Kalidou Koulibaly exits Chelsea to become latest star name joining Saudi Pro League Dybala or Vlahovic: Which Serie A striker should Chelsea sign? Chelsea target two Serie A players in quest for experienced strikers Mauricio Pochettino explains Chelsea ‘risk’ as club enters new era

Become the mother of machines with this powerful standard Magic deck featuring Elesh Norn. Read on for a full deck and strategy.