The 58-year-old plays entrepreneur Cameron Beck in The Iris Affair, a drama about the world's most powerful quantum computer. Dubbed "Charlie Big Potatoes" - it could eat ChatGPT for breakfast. It's a timely theme in a world where Artificial Intelligence is advancing at pace, and just last week, the world's first AI starlet - Tilly Norwood - made her Hollywood debut. Hollander is not impressed. He suggests rumours that Norwood is in talks with talent agencies are "a lot of old nonsense", and questions the logistics of working with an AI actor, asking "Would it be, like a blue screen?" Norwood - a pretty, 20-something brunette - is the creation of Dutch actor and comedian Eline Van der Velden and her AI production studio Particle6. It's planning to launch its own AI talent studio, Xicoia, soon. Hollander tells Sky News: "I'm perhaps not scared enough about it. I think the reaction against it is quite strong. And I think there'll be some legal stuff. Also, it needs to be proven to be good. I mean, the little film that they did around her, I didn't think was terribly interesting." The sketch - shared on social media and titled AI Commissioner - poked fun at the future of TV development in a post-AI world. Stars including Emily Blunt, Natasha Lyonne and Whoopi Goldberg have objected to Norwood's creation too, as has US actors' union SAG-AFTRA. Hollander compares watching an AI performer to watching a magic trick: "You know with your brain that you're watching something that's bullshit… If they don't have to tell you, that would be difficult. But if they've told you it's AI, then you'll watch it with a different part of your brain." Always screen-ready, with no ego and low salary requirements, Norwood is being billed as a studio's dream hire. In line with Hollywood's exacting standards for female beauty, she'll also never age. Hollander's Iris Affair co-star Niamh Algar, who plays genius codebreaker Iris Nixon in the show, doesn't feel threatened by this new kid on the block, poking fun at Norwood's girl-next-door persona: "She's a nightmare to work with. She's always late. Takes ages in her trailer." But Algar adds: "I don't want to work with an AI. No." She goes on, "I don't think you can replicate. She's a character, she's not an actor." Algar says the flaw in AI's performance - scraped from the plethora of real performances that have come before it - is that we, as humans, are "excited by unpredictability". She says AI is "too perfect, we like flaws". Hollander agrees: "There'll be a fight for authenticity. People will be going, 'I refuse makeup. Give me less makeup, I want less makeup because AI can't possibly mimic the blemishes on my face'". He even manages to pull a positive from the AI revolution: "It means that live performance will be more exciting than ever before… "I think live performance is one antidote, and it's certainly true in music, isn't it? I mean, partly because they have to go on tour [to make money], but also because there's just nothing like it and you can't replace it." Algar enthusiastically adds: "Theatre's going to kick off. It's going to be so hot." As for using AI themselves, while Hollander admits he's used it recently for "a bit of problem solving", Algar says she tries to avoid it, worrying "part of my brain is going to go dormant". Indeed, the impact of technology on our brains is a source of constant inspiration - and torture - for The Iris Affair screenwriter Neil Cross. Cross, who also created psychological crime thriller Luther, tells Sky News: "We are at a hinge point in history." He says: "I'm interested in what technological revolution does to people. I have 3am thoughts about the poor man who invented the like button. "He came up with a simple invention whose only intention was to increase levels of human happiness. How could something as simple as a like button go wrong? And it went so disastrously wrong. "It's caused so much misery and anxiety and unhappiness in the human race entire. If something as simple as a small like button can have such dire, cascading, unexpected consequences, what is this moment of revolution going to lead to?" Indeed, Cross says he lives in "a perpetual state of terror". He goes on: "I'm always going to be terrified of something. The world's going to look very different. I think in 50 or 60 years' time. He takes a brief pause, then self-edits: "Probably 15 years' time". With The Iris Affair's central themes accelerating out of science fiction, and into reality, Cross's examination of our instinctual fear of the unknown, coupled with our desire for knowledge that might destroy us is a powerful mix. Cross concludes: "We're in danger of creating God. And I think that's the ultimate danger of AI. God doesn't exist - yet." The Iris Affair is available from Thursday 16 October on Sky Atlantic and streaming service NOW

The app, which is popular with gamers and teenagers, said the hackers targeted a firm responsible for verifying the ages of its users. Discord said its own platform was not breached. The stolen data could include personal information, partial credit card numbers and messages with Discord's customer service agents, the firm said. No full credit card details, passwords or messages and activity beyond conversations with Discord customer support were leaked, it added. Discord said it had revoked the third-party service's access and was continuing to investigate. It said all affected users have been contacted. "Looking ahead, we recommend impacted users stay alert when receiving messages or other communication that may seem suspicious," it said. Until recently, a hack like this could not have happened, because companies had no need to process and collect proofs of age. Now, so many governments are following the UK and introducing age verification for unsuitable or pornographic content that a company like Discord has to roll out age checks for a decent portion of its 200 million active users. It's a bit like the way that shops have to check your age if you're buying alcohol - only because it's online, it comes with a lot of additional complications. A shop, for instance, won't keep a copy of your passport once they've checked your age. And it definitely won't keep it in a massive (yet strangely light) safe along with thousands of other passport photocopies, stored right by its front door, ready to be taken. Online, it's surprisingly easy to do just that. Read more on Sky News:AI 'distorting women online'Pros and cons of digital IDsImpact of new online safety rules It's worth noting that the age verification system used by Discord wasn't hacked itself. That system asked people to take a photo of themselves, then used software to estimate their age. Once the check was complete, the image was immediately deleted. The problem came with the appeals part of the process, which was supplied to Discord by a third party. If someone thought that the age verification system had wrongly barred them from Discord they could send in a picture of their ID to prove their age. This collection of images was hacked. As a result, Discord says, more than 70,000 IDs are now in the possession of hackers. (The hackers themselves claim that the number is much bigger - 2,185,151 photos. Discord says this is wrong and the hackers are simply trying to extort money. It's a messy situation.) There are ways to make age verification safer. Companies could stop storing photo ID, for instance (although then it would be impossible to know for sure if their checks were correct). And advocates of ID cards will point out that a proper government ID could avoid the need to send pictures of your passport simply to prove your age. You'd use your digital ID instead, which would stay safely on your device. But the best way to stop data being hacked is not to collect it in the first place. We're at the start of a defining test - can governments actually police the internet? Or will the measures that are supposed to make us safer actually end up making us less secure?

The ex-Tory leader, who remains an MP in parliament, has joined the Seattle-based tech firm as a paid part-time senior adviser and will give the company "high-level strategic perspectives on macro-economic and geopolitical trends" as well as how these "intersect with innovation, regulation and digital transformation". He will be donating his salary to his and his wife, Akshata Murty's, numeracy skills charity, The Richmond Project. Acoba, the watchdog that assesses external jobs for MPs, has said Sunak will not be advising on UK policy matters. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has in the past been accused of being toothless and unable to prevent MPs from taking employment that could cause a conflict of interest, or allow former parliamentarians to use contacts made in government for personal use. Sunak was prime minister between October 2022 and July 2024. It was thought he could be eyeing a job in Silicon Valley, California, after his general election defeat. But in his final prime minister's questions appearance as Conservative leader, Sunak vowed to spend more time "in the greatest place on Earth", referring to his Richmond and Northallerton constituency. He added: "If anyone needs me, I will be in Yorkshire." Acoba has warned Sunak that he shouldn't provide advice to or on behalf of Microsoft on government work or its contracts until later next year. Read more on Sky News:AI 'distorting women online'Pros and cons of digital IDsImpact of new online safety rules The former chancellor has also been asked not to lobby the government or make use of his Whitehall contacts during that time, and to limit his work to "providing advice on strategy, macro-economic and geopolitical matters that do not conflict" with his activities in Number 10. The Cabinet Office told the watchdog that Sunak's year on the Tory backbenches "will have helped to diminish the salience and currency of the information" he had access to. Sunak has also taken on a role at San Francisco-based Anthropic, which developed the Claude artificial intelligence (AI) models. He has also become a senior adviser to Goldman Sachs since leaving office, where he previously worked between 2001 and 2004.

Prince Harry and Meghan were presented with the award at the Project Healthy Minds gala, which aims to bring together champions of mental health, in New York on Thursday. Accepting the award on stage, the couple used the moment to speak about the potential dangers social media can pose for young people, which Harry described as "one of the most pressing issues of our time". The couple have spoken regularly about the potential harms of social media, and the fears they have for their two children. It comes after the pair's Archewell Foundation - a non-profit they launched in 2020 - announced that its Parents' Network support group initiative is joining forces with ParentsTogether, a non-profit organisation dedicated to family advocacy and online safety. 'A pivotal moment... to protect children' Speaking on Thursday, Harry said 4,000 families are currently taking legal action through the Social Media Victims Law Centre, having lost their children to social media. He said: "Parents who have learned legal action is possible, who have the capacity to pursue it while grieving, and parents who've found their way to help in the fightback against some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world. "And even after this, there may be no road to closure for grieving parents because these companies refuse to disclose their child's information and activity on their platforms. "This is a pivotal moment in our collective mission to protect children and support families in the digital age." He went on to hit out at the "explosion" of unregulated artificial intelligence (AI), saying both he and Meghan have seen the "full scope" of what the technology can do. Meghan added that the couple often discuss how they would protect their own children, six-year-old Archie and four-year-old Lili, as they grow older. "Like so many parents, we think constantly about how to embrace technology's benefits while safeguarding against its dangers," she said. "That hopeful intention of separation is rapidly becoming impossible." In April, Harry and Meghan also called for tougher action to protect children from the potential harms of social media. While helping to unveil a temporary memorial to young people who have died after being exposed to online content, in New York, the duke said in a statement: "These children were not sick. Their deaths were not inevitable - they were exposed to, and in many cases were pushed harmful content online, the kind any child could encounter. "No child should be exploited, groomed, or preyed upon in digital spaces. To the platforms, they may be seen as statistics. To their families, they were cherished and irreplaceable." Since stepping down as working royals in 2020, Harry and Meghan have been awarded various accolades, including a civil rights award from the NAACP and the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award, both in 2022. Both are involved with various charities, but in recent months, some of those that work with Prince Harry have made headlines. Read more:Harry and the King have private tea in first meeting for 19 monthsHarry talks of sibling 'challenge' On Wednesday, the non-profit organisation African Parks, which is partially run by Prince Harry, had its mandate for managing wildlife reserves in Chad removed by the country's government, after being accused of a lack of investment in wildlife reserves, and not doing enough to stop poaching. In August, the duke dramatically stepped down as patron from Sentebale - a charity established in 2006 to help children and young people in southern Africa, particularly those with HIV and AIDS - following a dispute with the charity's chairperson Dr Sophie Chandauk.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said legal tests had been met to designate Google with the status in general search and search advertising services due to "substantial and entrenched market power", with more than 90% of searches in the UK taking place on its platform. The designation gives the CMA greater control on how Google operates its UK services. The regulator said the Alphabet-owned firm's Gemini AI assistant was not in the scope of the designation but other AI functionality, including AI Overviews, were. Money latest: National insurance rumour prompting landlords to act It launched the inquiry in January after new powers came into force and had previously flagged the finding in a provisional decision. The CMA said the legislation allowed proportionate action to "improve competition in digital markets, helping to drive innovation, investment and growth across the UK economy". It added that it would begin consultations on possible remedies soon. What could happen? These could include demanding changes to its search engine in the UK, including through so-called "choice screens", and giving publishers more power. Any action could risk a row with the government, as ministers seek a "growth first" agenda within the country's regulatory bodies. Will Hayter, executive director for digital markets at the CMA, said: "By promoting competition in digital markets like search and search advertising we can unlock opportunities for businesses big and small to support innovation and growth, driving investment across the UK economy. "We have found that Google maintains a strategic position in the search and search advertising sector - with more than 90% of searches in the UK taking place on its platform." Google responded by arguing that the designation risked unintended consequences such as price rises and hits to innovation and growth. Read more from Sky News:Hack of popular messaging app shows risks of online age checksCustomers of five water firms facing higher than expected bill hikes Its senior director for competition, Oliver Bethell, said: "The UK enjoys access to the latest products and services before other countries because it has so far avoided costly restrictions on popular services, such as search. "Retaining this position means avoiding unduly onerous regulations and learning from the negative results seen in other jurisdictions, which have cost businesses an estimated 114 billion euros (£99.2 billion). "Many of the ideas for interventions that have been raised in this process would inhibit UK innovation and growth, potentially slowing product launches at a time of profound AI-based innovation. "Others pose direct harm to businesses, with some warning that they may be forced to raise prices for customers."