A long-standing cultural cruise and a new expedition-style offering will soon operate side by side in French Polynesia.
3 min
From late 2026 and into 2027, PONANT Explorations Group will base two ships in French Polynesia, offering travellers a choice between a culturally immersive classic and a far more exploratory deep-Pacific experience.
The move builds on more than 25 years of operating in the region with the iconic m/s Paul Gauguin, while introducing the expedition-focused Le Jacques Cartier to venture into lesser-known waters.
Together, the two vessels will cover all five Polynesian archipelagos — the Society, Tuamotu, Austral, Gambier and Marquesas Islands — as well as the remote Pitcairn Islands.
Long regarded as the benchmark for cruising in French Polynesia, m/s Paul Gauguin will remain based year-round in the region.
Renovated in 2025, the ship continues to focus on relaxed, culturally rich journeys with extended port stays designed to allow guests to experience daily life across the islands.
A defining feature of the onboard experience is the presence of the Gauguins and Gauguines — Polynesian hosts who share local traditions through music, dance and hands-on workshops, including weaving and craft demonstrations.
The atmosphere is deliberately intimate and internationally minded, catering to travellers seeking depth rather than distance.
Across the 2026–27 seasons, the ship will operate 66 departures, primarily across the Society Islands, Tuamotu and Marquesas, with select voyages extending to Fiji, Tonga and the Cook Islands.
Le Jacques Cartier introduces a more adventurous dimension to PONANT’s Polynesian offering, with itineraries focused on the least visited corners of the South Pacific.
The ship will debut three new “Discovery” itineraries, each 14 nights in length, which can also be combined into a single, extended 42-night voyage — the most comprehensive Polynesian itinerary currently available.
In total, the combined journey spans six archipelagos, 23 islands and the Pitcairn Islands, a British Overseas Territory rarely included on cruise itineraries.
Unlike the Paul Gauguin’s cultural focus, Le Jacques Cartier centres on exploration.
Each day includes one guided activity led by local experts, with excursions conducted via tenders, local boats and zodiacs. Scuba diving is available on board, supported by a resident instructor.
Across the 2026–27 period, the ship will operate nine departures, offering a deliberately limited and low-impact presence in some of the Pacific’s most isolated communities.
The new itineraries aboard Le Jacques Cartier include:
– Secret Polynesia: Unexplored Tuamotu, the Gambier Islands and the Austral Islands
– From Confidential French Polynesia to Pitcairn Island
– Polynesian Bliss: Marquesas and Tuamotu
Each voyage departs from Papeete, with prices starting from $15,840 per person.
In preparation for the new itineraries, PONANT Explorations Group undertook extensive scouting across the Austral and Tuamotu Islands to develop activities in collaboration with local communities.
José Sarica, the group’s R&D Expedition Experience Director, worked directly with residents to design experiences including welcome ceremonies, cultural workshops and visits to marae, the region’s sacred open-air temples.
Six new ports of call have been confirmed as part of this process, spanning both the Tuamotu and Austral archipelagos.
New stopovers include:
– Mataiva, known for its rare mosaic lagoon
– Hikueru, home to one of the largest lagoons in the Tuamotus
– Makemo, noted for its red-footed boobies and frigatebirds
– Raivavae, famed for its crystal-clear lagoon pools
– Tubuai, rich in marae and spiritual heritage
– Rurutu, known for limestone caves and seasonal humpback whale sightings
By pairing its long-established cultural voyages with expedition-led exploration, PONANT Explorations Group is positioning French Polynesia not as a single experience, but as two distinct journeys — one grounded in tradition and comfort, the other pushing into the furthest reaches of the Pacific.
For travellers seeking either immersion or discovery, the South Pacific is about to feel both familiar and entirely new.
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
