government healthcare website. If we are not careful, it's only a matter of time before one of these incidents causes large-scale, real-world harm, like shutting down an electricity grid or municipal water system, or a mass misdiagnosis in a health system. If this trend continues, the entire industry could become tarnished.

But there is a blueprint for self-regulation in a risky business: the nuclear industry, which has built up layers of oversight, controls and self-scrutiny over decades.

Frontier AI may require something similar: private regulation among competitors that do not trust one another but have a mutual interest in preventing outcomes that could damage them all. This does not appeal to the better angels of human nature — it's self-preservation for the industry itself.

There is a historical precedent for this kind of arrangement. The nuclear sector did not become safe because every actor suddenly became benevolent. It became safer through a layered system of peer scrutiny, technical standards, information-sharing and external oversight. International organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was established in 1957, emerged to coordinate monitoring and verification, while national regulators and industry bodies gradually built professional norms around catastrophic risk.

The result was not perfect safety, as the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 clearly attests. But nuclear governance architecture is designed around the recognition that in high-risk technological systems, one actor's failure can become everyone's problem. This was seen following Chernobyl: global nuclear safety increased significantly after the disaster, with upgrades to reactor designs, improved training and international monitoring networks.

And this movement to self-regulation also occurred in the U.S. nuclear sector, following the Three-Mile Island nuclear accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1979. The reactor suffered a partial meltdown after a relatively minor cooling malfunction. Investigations later revealed design flaws in instruments and alarms, along with inadequate emergency response training, were the root cause of the incident.

The event nearly killed the nuclear energy industry in the U.S., causing public support to fall from a record high of 69% in 1977 to 46%t in 1979. The entire industry suffered because of failures at one facility. In response, the U.S. nuclear industry established the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) in December 1979 to improve operational safety.

The analogy to AI should not be overstated. Nuclear materials are easier to count than algorithms, and nuclear facilities are harder to hide than model weights. The outcomes of a catastrophic AI blunder are also less existential, although its use in weapon systems is not without risk. In September, an AI hallucination almost led to the U.S. intercepting a Chinese ship suspected of carrying nuclear material to Iran.

Yet the comparison remains useful because the core governance problem is similar. In both cases, competitors operate in an environment where the downside risk of unchecked rivalry is borne by society while the upside is private gain for these firms. The challenge is to create institutions that make restraint the rational default — even when no actor fully trusts the others, and the inner workings of the industry are not readily visible to outsiders.

For AI, that could mean reciprocal evaluation of frontier models before deployment, secure mechanisms for sharing safety information, agreed red lines around certain capabilities, and independent third parties empowered to audit compliance. Such mechanisms would not replace government regulation. They would instead serve as an intermediate layer: stronger than voluntary ethics statements but more adaptive and technically informed than legislation alone can often be in fast-moving domains. The state would act as a background enforcer.

AI executives appear willing to look for solutions too, with Elon Musk recently suggesting a peer-review system before advanced model release, and Demis Hassabis, co-founder and chair of Google DeepMind, putting forward a framework for an AI Standards Body, similar to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Skeptics will object, with reason, that industry-led governance can become cartel behavior or public-relations theater. Companies may use "safety" language to entrench incumbency, slow rivals or deflect binding regulation. Those are real dangers. The lesson from nuclear history is not that private coordination works automatically. It is that private coordination works only when nested inside a broader system of transparency, verification and public authority. Without those elements, private regulation becomes little more than trust-me rhetoric.

Still, dismissing private regulation altogether would be a mistake. Governments do not yet possess the technical capacity, speed or international alignment needed to oversee frontier AI on their own. And if the leading labs already see themselves as bound together by shared exposure to catastrophic risk, that recognition can become the basis for institutional design. The question is how to turn mutual fear into durable rules.

That is where the nuclear analogy is most powerful. It reminds us that industries facing existential hazards do not need perfect trust in order to cooperate. They need mechanisms that make cooperation preferable to defection. In practice, that means inspections, peer review, incident reporting, professional norms and a state-backed enforcement perimeter. AI governance is often discussed as if the only choices were laissez-faire innovation or heavy-handed state control. History suggests a third path: structured private coordination under public shadow.

The real opportunity, then, is not to celebrate the newfound (apparent) prudence of technology executives, it is to recognize what their comments reveal. When even fierce rivals begin to argue for mutual scrutiny, they are admitting that competition alone cannot govern the frontier. That admission should be treated not as reassurance but as evidence that the risk has become collective.

The policy task now is to build institutions that fit that reality. Governments should push for mandatory reporting, independent evaluation and legal backstops. But they should also encourage enforceable forms of peer oversight among the handful of firms whose systems may shape the trajectory of the technology. Frontier AI is becoming an industry in which the leading actors are hostages of one another. The nuclear age showed that such conditions can produce serious governance. The hope is that AI firms learn that lesson before they learn the cost of ignoring it at the peril of the public at large.

Opinion on Live Science gives you insight on the most important issues in science that affect you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their field.

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

'> AI giants are one big mistake away from catastrophe. They could learn a lot from the nuclear industry.

Although it officially turns full at 12:11 a.m. EDT on Monday (Oct. 26), the Hunter's Moon will appear almost perfectly full as it rises on both Sunday (Oct. 25) and Monday evenings, giving skywatchers two opportunities to observe it.

October's full moon is nicknamed the Hunter's Moon because it was traditionally a signal for hunters to prepare for the coming cold winter by hunting, slaughtering and preserving meat, according to Time and Date. That's an Anglo-Saxon name; Native American names for October's full moon include the Drying Rice Moon, the Falling Leaves Moon and the Freezing Moon.

The first chance to see the Hunter's Moon comes just before sunset on Sunday, when the almost-full moon will rise in the east. The second opportunity comes on Monday, when the moon — still essentially 100% illuminated — will again rise just after sunset. Because it will be in a slightly darker sky, Monday's moonrise will likely be more dramatic.

As it rises Sunday, the moon will appear in the constellation Aries, and Saturn will be to its upper right. On Monday, it will rise above the Pleiades open cluster (M45).

For the best view on either evening, find somewhere with a clear view low to the eastern horizon and be in position shortly before moonrise where you are. An elevated viewpoint, open field or coastline is ideal because buildings, trees and hills can delay the moment the moon becomes visible.

Although the full moon will look magnificent with the naked eye, a backyard telescope or good stargazing binoculars can help you zoom in on various lunar features.

The Hunter's Moon may appear unusually large thanks to the "moon illusion," which makes the moon seem bigger when it's seen beside familiar objects, such as trees and buildings, near the horizon. The illusion stems from the fallacies of how our brains use distance to perceive size.

October's Hunter's Moon isn't a supermoon, but it comes immediately before a notable sequence of four consecutive supermoons. The first will be the next full moon, the Beaver Moon, on Nov. 24, followed by full moons in December, January and February. A supermoon occurs when a full moon happens while the moon is relatively close to Earth in its slightly elliptical orbit, making it appear somewhat larger and brighter than average.

How much do you know about the moon? Test your lunar smarts with our moon quiz!

'> Watch the full 'Hunter's Moon' rise next to Saturn this weekend Nazca Lines there are, but they number in the thousands, with new geoglyphs continuing to be discovered with the help of AI.

But why were the Nazca Lines built?

Scientists have been debating this question since the lines were first formally investigated in the early 20th century. Although the definite answer remains unknown, experts have proposed various reasons for the famous geoglyphs.

There "are many ideas out there about their function and meaning," Ana Nieves, a professor of art history at Northeastern Illinois University, told Live Science in an email. "If you look at the area's geoglyphs closely, though, there are different styles of geoglyphs, some are relatively larger and some smaller, some are on hillsides while some are on the pampas. It is not likely that a single explanation would apply to all."

Different perspectives

A vast array of theories for the lines' uses have been proposed over the years, with the most outlandish of these suggesting that they were sites for aliens to land spaceships.

More grounded theories link the lines to cultural and religious practices.

"The question of why the geoglyphs exist is difficult to answer, given that we lack any type of preserved oral or written testimony," Karsten Lambers, an art history professor at the University of Augsburg in Germany, wrote in an essay published in the book "Los geoglifos: imágenes y escenarios en el desierto de Nazca y Palpa [The Geoglyphs: images and settings in the desert of Nazca and Palpa]" (University of Augsburg, 2017). It's possible that the uses for the geoglyphs changed over time, he added.

One suggestion is that they were initially used to mark routes for travelers and caravans and later became places for gathering and feasting.

In a 2026 study, researchers noted that some of the earlier Nazca geoglyphs were constructed on hillsides, seem to be located on trails, and "were visible from considerable distances." This means the geoglyphs may have been used to mark travel routes and indicate areas that were good for temporary camps. The team suggested that the markings became places for gathering and feasting.

Another idea is that the geoglyphs were used to match astronomical alignments to serve as a kind of calendar. In December 1941, historian Paul Kosok examined the lines and determined that they had astronomical alignments. Mathematician Maria Reiche followed up on Kosok's work, examining the Nazca Lines for more than 40 years to identify many geoglyphs she believed have an astronomical relationship to various celestial bodies, a research team noted in a 2021 paper. Yet after analyzing the geoglyphs, the modern-day team found that only a relatively small number had a possible alignment to a star or solar event such as a solstice.

"The results suggest that the geoglyphs, as a whole, certainly cannot be interpreted as a calendar system," the team wrote. However, this doesn't discredit the idea that the Nazca Lines had an astronomical significance, Christiane Richter, a researcher at the University of Applied Sciences in Germany and first author of the 2021 paper, told Live Science in an email.

Since the paper's publication, Richter and her team's research has indicated that around 8% of the geoglyphs have some form of lunar alignment. It is "highly probable that celestial bodies played a role in the creation of the drawings," Richter said in an email.

Offerings such as ceramics, crabs, corn and earrings made from Spondylus shells (a genus of bivalves known as thorny oysters) were also placed on low rock platforms near some of the geoglyphs, especially those shaped like trapezoids, Lambers noted in his paper. Spondylus shells are normally found farther north, in Ecuador, but during El Niño events, they can appear farther south, in Peru. These shells, alongside crabs and corn, tend to be associated with water and fertility, Lambers noted.

Another idea is that the geoglyphs themselves may have been used for ritual processions. Some of the geoglyphs are made with a single, uninterrupted line," Nieves said. "Those are the ones that would lend themselves for processions since people could walk them in a single file."

Some of the activities at the Nazca Lines may have helped foster a sense of community and equality, said Darryl Wilkinson, a professor of religion at Dartmouth University who has written about the geoglyphs. For instance, "walking the lines was a group activity, and participating in such processions would have likely created a feeling of community among those involved," Wilkinson told Live Science in an email. "I interpret the Nasca lines as geared towards the realization of a relatively more equal expression of community."

Whatever the reasons for their construction the Nazca Lines are awe inspiring today. Lambers wrote in his essay that the Nazca people who built them "succeeded in transforming one of the driest deserts in the world, over the course of many centuries, to serve the region’s inhabitants as an expression of their cultural ideas and a setting for their social activities."

'> Why were the Nazca Lines built? she said on a podcast that she felt she was "back at square one, where I don't know what's going on with me."

Applegate's case is not totally unique, although MS diagnosis has improved over the years. Studies offer different estimates of how frequently MS is misdiagnosed, with rates ranging from 5% to over 40%, depending on the patient population and clinical setting. There is also some degree of underdiagnosis — cases in which people with MS aren't flagged as having the disease.

So, how difficult is MS to identify, and what does that mean for patients? Live Science spoke with experts about the current state of MS diagnostics and the improvements that may be coming in the future.

"It's also really important that doctors and patients be aware that it's not inappropriate to revisit a diagnosis — to make sure it's right," Dr. Ari Green, chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology at the University of California, San Francisco, told Live Science.

The importance of early diagnosis

MS is an autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacks the central nervous system, meaning the brain and spinal cord. These attacks harm neurons directly and also take aim at myelin — a fatty, insulating substance that coats neurons' outgoing wires and helps them send signals efficiently.

This damage leads to distinctive scarring in nerve tissue and causes a range of symptoms, including vision problems, muscle weakness, tingling sensations, dizziness and bladder control issues. Patients with untreated and advanced MS can lose the ability to walk and stand or, in some cases, develop partial or complete paralysis.

These severe outcomes are becoming rarer as treatments have improved significantly, Green said. Current treatments keep immune attacks at bay and thus prevent further nerve damage.

"It's moved from people ending up with severe, profound disability at 10 or 20 years of disease, and now it's at like 30 or 40 years of disease, they have modest disability," Green told Live Science. The disease most often emerges between age 20 and 40, although it can occur in any age group. Importantly, Green said, "the earlier people initiate treatment who have MS, the better they do over the long term."

For that reason, it's important to reach an MS diagnosis efficiently, so that patients can start that critical treatment, said Dr. Yohance Allette, a neuroimmunologist and researcher at Penn State Health. "You're trying to be as proactive as possible with this."

"A diagnosis of exclusion"

However, there is no single, surefire test that can reliably show that a person has MS. "With MS, it comes down to the keyword 'criteria," Allette said.

MS experts have compiled a list of criteria, which are updated periodically, that reflect how the features of MS show up in lab tests; brain, optic nerve and spinal cord scans; and patients' symptoms. (Green was among the dozens of experts involved in the latest update, which was conducted in 2024 and published in 2025.)

So, what does diagnosis look like for a patient today? The first step is to recognize symptoms that might point to MS.

Those early symptoms — such as issues with balance, vision or bowel control — vary significantly from person to person and may not immediately raise red flags that the patient has a neurological problem, Green said. The way those symptoms emerge can be a clue, though; typically, MS symptoms worsen over the course of a day or a few days and then dissipate, he noted.

Once concerning symptoms are flagged, MRIs of the brain and spinal cord are taken. The scans may reveal evidence of myelin damage, and neurologists note the shape, size and location of those lesions. Damage often appears near blood vessels, since that's where immune cells access the brain, Green noted.

Other conditions — like migraine, uncontrolled diabetes or vascular disease — can also come with some myelin damage, so it's key to look for specific patterns related to MS. Neurologists who specialize in MS are practiced at this task, while doctors in other neurological specialties may not know how to distinguish MS-related myelin damage from that caused by other conditions, Allette and Green both noted.

MRIs of the optic nerves can also show MS-related damage, and these scans are emphasized in the latest diagnostic criteria, Allette noted. Electrophysiologic tests, which assess the function of nerves, are also "super important because they tell you something totally different than just seeing a lesion on MRI," Green said. Further signs of MS can be found via spinal taps, which sample the fluid around the brain and spinal cord that may carry proteins and inflammatory cells related to MS.

In addition to collecting these clues, doctors must rule out diseases that look similar to MS. These include neuromyelitis optica and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) — two other autoimmune conditions that affect the central nervous system. Both these diseases are associated with distinctive, rogue immune proteins, called autoantibodies, that latch onto various parts of the nervous system; those specific antibodies are not seen in MS.

Other conditions — such as the inflammatory disease lupus and neuromuscular disease myasthenia gravis — can sometimes look like MS at first glance, as well. Some of these "MS mimics" can be ruled out with data from spinal taps or antibody tests, while others require a more laborious battery of assessments.

"Ultimately, it's a diagnosis of exclusion," Allette said. "There are things that you can rule out quickly," while others take time to investigate thoroughly.

Conditions like MOGAD and neurosarcoidosis, an inflammatory condition sometimes mistaken for MS, can actually be worsened by MS medications, Green noted. So if a patient's MS flare-ups worsen after they start a treatment, that could hint that something else is the culprit, he said. But because there may be long gaps between flare-ups, doctors may need to track a patient for some time before their worsening becomes apparent.

Gaps to fill?

Given all the tools available, a patient can be reasonably confident in their MS diagnosis, Green said.

"In general, there's a fair amount of diagnostic confidence that comes with MS diagnosis today," he said. However, that confidence is highest when the tools are in the hands of a specialist who is following the most up-to-date criteria, he noted. The test results require interpretation, and that's one place where uncertainty can creep in.

Regarding Applegate's circumstances, "to speak bluntly, I think the case came as a bit of a shock because we always expect that part of society to have quick access [to high-quality medical care]," Allette said. For some patients, the road to accessing specialty MS care can be long, which can result in missteps, and even misdiagnoses, along the way. Applegate went five years with an incorrect diagnosis, but "would that have been seven or eight years for somebody who doesn't have that access?" Allette speculated.

Without knowing the details of Applegate's case, Allette and Green said it would be difficult to speculate on what resulted in her misdiagnosis. (Applegate mentioned that her brain scans had been reassessed with a "new technology," but didn't go into specifics.)

Looking toward the future of MS diagnostics, Green and Allette think emerging proteomic tests hold a lot of promise. Such tests generate a profile of the proteins and smaller fragments, called peptides, in a patient's blood or cerebrospinal fluid. They can be designed to look for proteins involved in driving the underlying immune attacks, as well as signs of nerve damage that MS wrecks, they explained.

These in-depth, protein analyses could help paint a more comprehensive picture of MS, which could ultimately help scientists "look at that whole system in concert" to reach a strong diagnosis, Allette said.

No proteomics-based diagnostic tests for MS have been approved yet, Green clarified. And even with those upcoming advances, Green doubts there will ever be a simple, one-time test that can determine a patient has MS. "I think that's probably unlikely, that it would ever be that straightforward," he said.

He does think that, in time, scientists could pare down the number of tests required to reach a diagnosis, but he argued that the clinical evaluation conducted by a neurologist will likely remain crucial. "I'm doubtful that there's going to be a test that will fully replace that," he said, "at least in the foreseeable future."

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

'> Christina Applegate misdiagnosis: Why can MS be difficult to diagnose?

Other commenters echoed this sentiment. "It will never happen as some cheap alternative to electric or petrol driven vehicles," one person responded. "Gravity is master on this planet so to rise above that and be floating or propelled around on some sort of air current, Nah! I cannot imagine the damage that will take place in any livable area, towns, suburbs, cities, parks, etc, etc., that list is endless. And imagine the protests should a general public be allowed to dive and fly above any or all livable areas."

Not everyone was as adverse, with another commenter remarking on how far Tesla's technological development has come. "The flying roadster is a statement of what Mr. Musk can do with technology more than anything else. In the same way he can make the Roadster fly, be sure that the technology designed into the Tesla Y, the Cybercab or the Starship are at the very frontier of science. Mr Musk has singlehanded revolutionized the car industry and space travel in less than 20 years (the first Tesla car was sold in 2008). No small feat."

Do you agree or disagree with our readers? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.

'> 'Most people can't handle driving in 2 dimensions let alone 3': Readers respond to our poll about flying cars