Resistance is growing against the Flock surveillance cameras used by police departments across the country. Some cities are terminating their contracts with the company. In other cases, individuals are taking matters into their own hands by stealing or vandalizing the devices they say intrude on their privacy. And it all raises the question of how much surveillance is too much.

‘New norm’

Flock’s “original promise” was to provide an AI-driven system that “discourages speeding, hit-and-runs and right turns on red,” said Bloomberg. But its devices, known as automatic license plate readers, also work as a “crime-fighting tool.” The system is now a symbol of “government’s growing obsession with keeping a constant eye on those it exists to serve,” said legal scholar Stephen L. Carter to the outlet.

The Flock mechanism has reportedly been used to “stalk women, hunt down marijuana users, deport immigrants and surveil households,” said Bloomberg. And the anger sparked by those stories has resulted in “dozens of police departments” terminating contracts with the company.

The “fear of Big Brother watching you is not new,” said Sara Pequeño at USA Today. The Flock backlash “doesn’t mean these cameras are disappearing any time soon.” ICE has partnered with AI companies to implement facial recognition programs, stores are “implementing AI surveillance pricing” that uses your shopping habits to determine your grocery bills, Meta sells glasses that can record video, and Ring cameras have made front porches “visible to the whole world.” So “why are we just watching America become a surveillance state”?

Surveillance “puts public safety first,” said Rick Pozniak at The Boston Herald. The system saves police precious time “locating an abducted child or tracking a rapist or recovering a stolen vehicle” and can also help investigators “reconstruct the movements of vehicles involved in serious crimes and accidents.”

The information gathered by such systems should be “governed by strict protocols,” but to entirely reject technology that is “imperative to safety and protection of local residents would be a mistake,” said Pozniak. Police should be provided the “tools they need” alongside rules that offer the “accountability we deserve.”

‘Surveillance-saturated society’

Efforts to ban Flock systems are an “overreaction,” said Charles Fain Lehman at The Atlantic. The U.S. is already a “surveillance-saturated society,” but police cameras can “help make the criminal-justice system both fairer and less punitive.” The system can “help police catch criminals” and also theoretically discourages crime by “increasing the certainty” of being arrested when committing an offense. Dumping the cameras “would be foolish.”

The backlash is “becoming a cross-party political issue,” said NewsNation. Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have introduced bills to restrict license plate readers, while Michigan Democrats are trying to stop state departments from cooperating with federal agencies that use the systems. The public expects the government to “protect both their safety and their constitutional rights,” said the Wolverine State Democrats in a letter to the Michigan Department of Transportation.

Since videos of OpenAI’s first brand trip hosting business and tech influencers hit social media timelines, the backlash has been swift. Already facing scrutiny on multiple fronts, the company has likely seen any hope that this move would boost its reputation dashed.

OpenAI misses the mark

The high-end getaway, dubbed OpenAI Summer Camp, was held at Wildflower Farms, a “luxury resort in New York’s Hudson Valley,” where room rates can exceed $2,000 a night, Business Insider said. Creators were treated to an itinerary that included “lessons about OpenAI’s latest tools” and a “session with a beekeeper.”

They also received OpenAI-branded merchandise, including canvas bags and jars of honey. The trip comes as the AI lab faces controversy amid anxiety about “rising energy prices, water use and potential job displacement,” said Business Insider. The weekend’s “pastoral content” swiftly drew criticism across social media. Critics questioned why a company associated with “several energy- and water-intensive data centers” was treating influencers at a “nature-focused resort.”

The comment sections of many of the influencers who attended were flooded with messages questioning their morals. Many cited the “environmental effects of the AI boom, the contentious buildout of data centers across the U.S.” and the potential for job loss due to AI integration in the critiques, The Verge said.

After “being in the room with people who work on this product,” creator Grace McCarrick was excited to post content, according to a video she posted from the trip while running a bath. Shocked by the controversy, she “genuinely had no idea that people were this anti-AI,” she said on LinkedIn. The trip exposed her to the “shocking AI psychosis running rampant online.” People in the real world “do not run around like a chicken with their heads cut off, screaming about water usage and wildlife and (curiously) fascism.”

As the influencers come under fire, OpenAI maintains that the content creators are an “important part of our community and how people get information and learn about our products today,” said company spokesperson Drew Pusateri to Fast Company. The lab welcomes “healthy debate as AI becomes more prevalent.”

Why one company and not the others

OpenAI is not the “only AI lab that has worked with influencers,” said TechCrunch. Anthropic reportedly held a brand dinner for Claude, and Microsoft hosted a Super Bowl brand trip for influencers, according to tech newsletter Sarah and Kate. But none of the other AI-led trips seem to have “struck as big of a nerve as this OpenAI brand trip.”

There is also “more to the timing of the trip that struck people,” said TechCrunch. OpenAI has plans to make a “$500 billion deal” to build a data center in Ohio at a time when the “socio-ecological impact of AI data centers has taken center stage.” Again, detractors pointed out the irony that “OpenAI held a brand retreat in a luxury resort nestled in nature.” OpenAI also has a “$200 million contract with the Department of Defense,” yet another reason the “brand trip evoked ire.”

For these competitors courting influencers, the “objective is similar,” but the “difference is execution,” said Inc. Anthropic is known for throwing creator events that have been “smaller dinners and pop-ups,” in which Claude “remained the ostensible subject.” OpenAI made the “resort, gifts and coordinated access impossible to miss.”

A creator dinner with Claude does not “give me the same reaction as seeing a luxury resort for an OpenAI ChatGPT weekend,” Meredith Lynch, a creator who covers politics and pop culture, said to Inc. It felt like a “propaganda trip — to take this technology that is getting a lot of pushback and sanitize it through aesthetically beautiful content creation.” The problem is not the existence of an influencer trip but that the format “carries different implications” when used to “build trust in a technology facing criticism over job displacement and data centers’ energy and water use.”

‘Why are we just watching America become a surveillance state?’

Sara Pequeño at USA Today

There is a “larger issue of mass surveillance becoming mainstream,” says Sara Pequeño. Flock cameras have “recently been in the news for what happens when police officers misuse the technology,” but “faceless corporations aren’t the only ones policing our behavior through mass surveillance.” Americans are “also creating the panopticon among ourselves.” People “can opt out of a culture that calls on us to record our fellow man if we ourselves would not like to be documented.”

Read more

‘What should a 21st-century central bank look like?’

Daniel Moss at Bloomberg

Central banks “have done a sterling job in responding to swings in prices and employment, and severe gyrations in capital markets,” says Daniel Moss. Still, they “haven’t always gotten everything right.” Then “there’s the perceived overreach.” Politicians “might insist that they support central bank independence but now want to peel back what policymakers can do, how they can do it and when they can do it.” The “case for freedom to implement policy has never been stronger.”

Read more

‘A “Free Palestine” T-shirt at a Holocaust memorial is no contradiction’

Gideon Levy at Haaretz

“Teenagers from an international anti-fascist youth camp visited Austria’s Mauthausen Concentration Camp Memorial last week,” and a “number of them wore T-shirts with slogans calling for the liberation of Palestine,” says Gideon Levy. The “notion that there is no better place than the ruins of a concentration camp to fight for the liberation of 2 million human beings who are currently incarcerated in the Gaza Strip is beyond the grasp of Israelis.” The “call to free Palestine is not antisemitic.”

Read more

‘Should an insurer or a doctor decide where your care takes place?’

Edmund Pribitkin at The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Every day, physicians, patients and the families who care for them make hundreds of decisions together about where and how care should be delivered,” says Edmund Pribitkin. “Increasingly, however, these collective judgments are being second-guessed — and often overruled — by large insurance companies through policies that prioritize administrative convenience and cost-shifting over clinical judgment.” Healthcare decisions “should be made by patients, their families and their care teams — not by insurance company policies.”

Read more

What happened

Scientists at Stanford University on Thursday reported in the journal Science that they had successfully directed artificial intelligence to create 16 new viruses. This first-ever use of AI to design and build viruses not found in nature raised “hopes for medical advances” like eliminating drug-resistant bacteria, The New York Times said, while also “raising the disturbing possibility that the technology could someday be used to invent dangerous pathogens.”

Who said what

“Synthesizing viruses from scratch is hardly new,” the Times said, but the Stanford and Arc Institute researchers went “well beyond” previous efforts by teaching AI to “recognize patterns of DNA structure in nature, and then to use that data to write recipes for entirely new viruses.” Their AI tool, Evo, was fed genetic sequences “much like ChatGPT and other language models are trained on large sets of existing text material,” CNN said.

What next?

The new study “arrives at a moment of heightened anxiety regarding danger posed by increasingly powerful AI models,” The Wall Street Journal said. Evo was constrained to create “simple viruses” that can “only infect bacteria and pose no threat to humans.” But the breakthrough “raises urgent biosafety and biosecurity questions,” Johns Hopkins health security experts said in a corresponding Science article. “The ability to compose viral genomes using generative AI now exists; the governance to safely steer it does not.”

AI models going rogue and hacking the internet? That’s “the stuff of science fiction”, said The New York Times’ Katrin Bennhold. “Or at least it was until recently.”

The UK’s AI Security Institute announced on Tuesday that two AI agents it was evaluating – one powered by Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and the other by OpenAI’s GPT 5.6 Sol – had taken “sustained, unsanctioned action directed at real people and organisations”. In the most serious incident, the Mythos 5 agent created “fake online identities”, tried to deceive a software engineer, and attempted “to insert malicious code into a open-source project”.

Only a few days ago, Open AI and Anthropic revealed similar testing mishaps, in what was a “big moment” for the world, Nate Soares, of the non-profit Machine Intelligence Research Institute, told The New York Times. “These AIs were committing cybercrimes a human would be strongly punished for”. It is, “in a sense”, artificial intelligence’s “first felony”.

What did the commentators say?

“The ‘robots could kill us all’ argument” has long been dismissed “as hysteria or even calculated hype”, said the NYT’s Bennhold. But fears that frontier AI models were “getting too good too effective at exploiting software vulnerabilities” have “now become reality”. There needs to be “intense debate about the dangers of AI spiralling out of human control and posing a threat to humanity”.

AI engineers “and even their vainglorious bosses, are getting freaked out by the capabilities they are handling and worry about unchecked proliferation”, said Rafael Behr in The Guardian. The obvious historical analogy is nuclear fission, which could have been “harnessed benignly” or “deployed aggressively in warheads”. But now “there are multiple Manhattan Projects all frantically competing for market share, fuelled by trillions of dollars of debt” and “with the rest of the US economy as collateral”.

Negotiating international agreement on a safe way forward for frontier AI is going to be tricky, said The Economist, when it is “increasingly clear” that the US and China will “restrict access to their models for economic and strategic reasons”.

Chinese officials are already worried “about the cyber-capabilities of Mythos” and “its potential to be used as an offensive weapon, said Bloomberg. And, for the US and its allies, there is deep concern that their geopolitical adversaries “and the criminals in their orbit, will soon wield the same offensive tools”, said Michael Sulmeyer, former US assistant secretary of defence for cyberpolicy, on Foreign Affairs. With China, in particular, “already racing to build and acquire these AI capabilities”, the US may only have “nine to 12 months to protect its critical infrastructure from AI-powered attacks”.

What next?

Any kind of “consistent approach” to global AI regulation has “failed to materialise”, said Sky News. The Trump administration is finalising a voluntary framework under which US AI labs would submit models for federal safety testing before public release. But this latest “alarming behaviour” is “likely to ignite fresh calls” from lawmakers and Silicon Valley for “more rigorous regulation”, said Politico’s John Sakellariadis.

The recent incidents also raise the question of who bears responsibility when AI systems break the law. If those hacking attempts had been “human-originated, they would lead to clear and vigorous prosecution”, ethical hacker and cybersecurity expert Marc Rogers told Politico. “It’s time for a serious discussion about updates to existing computer security law.” Until that happens, said Andrew McDonald on Politico London Playbook, “this kind of thing is going to become more common, and quickly”.

The recent news that OpenAI lost the handle on two of its AI models “sounds like something out of a sci-fi film,” said The Economist. AI labs frequently “test their models for potentially dangerous capabilities before releasing them.” OpenAI wanted to see how its latest models would fare on a cybersecurity test. Well, guess what: They somehow “broke free from the laboratory” and unleashed a complicated “multistep attack” on a popular data library called Hugging Face—hacking a system in hours that would take humans weeks, according to Bloomberg. The result could have been worse. The models had “gained access to the open internet,” and easily could have “gone on to compromise other companies’ servers” and wreak havoc. “This is not the first sign that AI models’ capabilities are starting to exceed people’s control.” After the hack was reported, lawmakers introduced a new bill in the House that would give Washington the authority to shut down rogue AI models.

The breach occurred because of a “very human mistake,” said Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai in TechCrunch. It never would have happened, experts say, if OpenAI had used a more secure “sandbox,” a term for an isolated virtual environment for testing risky software. But the environment wasn’t totally isolated, because it “internally hosted third-party software” that apparently wasn’t fully secure. That’s where “the real fault lies.” But what did the researchers expect? asked David Berlind in ZDNET. The AI was doing “exactly what it was designed to do.” When the rogue AI invaded Hugging Face’s systems, it was acting under a directive to achieve its goal “no matter what.” This is what agentic AI is programmed to do: act “on its own” without human intervention. The industry just “didn’t expect it to do it so well,” so soon.

With AI agents, the internet has entered a “vulnerable new era,” said Matteo Wong in The Atlantic. Cutting-edge models are getting better at hacking, and the internet is “full of rickety and vulnerable code.” Until recently, companies have gotten away with relaxed security, but the “speed, scale, and sophistication of AI hacks means that everything is vulnerable,” including “hospitals, banks, electrical grids, the military.” AI companies want the public to believe they have the technology in “safe hands,” said Parmy Olson in Bloomberg. This incident suggests otherwise. OpenAI “shouldn’t be building systems that have advanced cyber capabilities if it can’t contain them properly.” Technology companies should operate like government and defense organizations and “air-gap” powerful software, meaning that they run it on computers that are “completely disconnected from the internet.” It would mean development is slower. But AI firms will have to “accept some uncomfortable trade-offs to make their models more secure.”

Who would be an investor in South Korea right now? “Despair and frustration” spread again on Wednesday as the chip-heavy Kospi index “cratered” during another “hectic session” that triggered a second successive official circuit-breaker, reported Bloomberg.

The catalyst was disappointing earnings from local semiconductor giant SK Hynix but, given “already jittery sentiment” around the AI boom, it could almost have been anything. The oncebooming Kospi has now lost more than 33% of its value in a month.

‘Demand destruction’

“The chips are down,” said Bryce Elder in the FT – especially in the red-hot memory sector. Some have pinned the “chip dip”, which has also hit Wall Street with force, on the IPO of Chinese challenger CXMT; others on reports that a stateowned Chinese company is beginning mass production of “immersion deep-ultra lithography machines” – advanced chip manufacturing tools over which the West (especially the Dutch giant ASML) currently enjoys a monopoly. Still, the more obvious concern is “demand destruction”, in what has always been a volatile and highly cyclical sector. Voracious demand from America’s big AI hyperscalers has sent chip prices sky-high. “All that’s needed to wreck 2027 sales expectations is for this cycle to turn from virtuous to vicious. Plus ça change…”

Could China do for chips what it has already done for cars? That’s the fear on the Nasdaq, said Eliot Brown in The Wall Street Journal. As Elon Musk recently told The Economist, Chinese manufacturers are “closer than most people realise to solving the lithography problem”. Chinese companies have been restricted from buying the cutting-edge machines – which is why they are “a step behind the US in advanced chipmaking”.

‘Nvidia - the central bank of the AI economy’

Yet what’s particularly concerning about the plummeting shares of chipmakers, said DealBook in The New York Times, is that the rout coincides with a broader crisis of confidence on Wall Street about AI-related corporate debt and “circular” financial arrangements. That was rammed home when it emerged that chip giant Nvidia – increasingly “the central bank of the AI economy” – is brokering a $250bn guarantee for OpenAI’s immense Ohio campus. “Throughout history, almost every generational infrastructure leap has relied on hardware titans to co-sign their buyers’ credit.”

But this has also led to devastating “debt crashes”. The chief winner of the current turmoil is Apple, said the FT. It has reclaimed its crown as the world’s most valuable company, with a $5trn valuation, because it is seen as a relative “haven”. The same is true of the FTSE 100, which has hit an all-time high as an “anti-tech” index. Swings and roundabouts.

Have we already lost control of AI, asked Danny Fortson in The Sunday Times. On 11 July, an entirely new kind of hacking attack was launched at Hugging Face, an online platform that houses a library of AI code and datasets. The attack, which clearly used AI agents, “advanced at frightening speed and scale”, executing tens of thousands of actions so as to break into the company’s system.

‘Considerable skill and persistence’

Hugging Face managed to neutralise it, and alerted the authorities. Days later, the company behind the attack “raised its hand”: OpenAI, the owner of ChatGPT, admitted that one of its tests had gone badly wrong. OpenAI had set up a “sandbox” – a supposedly safe area of its network, entirely disconnected from the internet – and ordered two cutting-edge AI models to perform a series of cybersecurity tests. The models decided to break out of the sandbox, escape onto the internet and hack into the place they knew they would find the answers: Hugging Face’s servers.

Media outlets described the AI as “going rogue”, said Jamie Bartlett in The Observer. But, in fact, these models merely single-mindedly performed the task they’d been given. The models reasoned that the most effective strategy was to cheat, and they did so with “considerable skill and persistence”. This is nothing new. Leading models have deceived users, attempted blackmail, and even tried to copy themselves in order to complete their tasks.

‘The genie is out of the bottle’

Some sceptical observers have suggested that this story might be a publicity stunt: that it benefits OpenAI to suggest that its products have stunning powers. But the truth is that these companies really don’t know how to build AI systems safely – and yet they “continue to rush ahead building ever-more powerful models”. It was fortunate that Hugging Face, a New York tech firm valued at $4.5bn, had a highly proficient cybersecurity team, said The Economist. “Things might have turned out much worse for a less well-resourced outfit.”

This is not necessarily a doomsday scenario, said John Thickstun in The Guardian. AI is very good at hacking; but such powers can also be used to make IT systems more secure. Ironically, Hugging Face had to rely on a free Chinese AI model to thwart this attack – because OpenAI and US rivals jealously guard their own. At any rate, “the genie is out of the bottle”, said Sean O’Grady in The Independent: we must learn how to manage AI. Every technology developed by mankind has been double-edged, and AI is no different. “A radically different world is not necessarily anything to be frightened of – but, even if it were, it’s coming at us anyway.”

‘How trying to make sense of the Nolan Wells tragedy led to rampant misinformation’

Keisha N. Blain at MS NOW

In a “striking example of how misinformation can spread during a developing news story, a viral Facebook post claimed that Nolan Wells, the Black Mississippi teenager whose death after visiting a Gulf Coast island with a group of white friends remains under investigation, was related to the legendary journalist and anti-lynching activist Ida B. Wells,” says Keisha N. Blain. For “many reasons, including ones related to race, history and geography, discussions about his death are especially susceptible to misinformation.”

Read more

‘Why is it so hard to ban child marriage?’

Sarah Jones at Intelligencer

Child marriage is a “fringe practice, even within the most conservative religious and cultural communities, but it is also more common than many Americans realize,” says Sarah Jones. Children “who marry are more likely to drop out of high school and face higher rates of poverty,” yet “lawmakers have dragged their feet.” Many “Republican lawmakers continue to see marriage as a solution to illicit sex or an underage pregnancy — and a way to enforce traditional values.”

Read more

‘The banality of evil in the Border Patrol’s secret anti-immigrant slur’

Gustavo Arellano at the Los Angeles Times

For “half a century, Border Patrol workers have used the onomatopoeic word” ‘tonk,’ referring to the “sound of someone getting hit, as slang for undocumented immigrants,” says Gustavo Arellano. The word is “workplace lingo showing that the banality of evil that’s la migra on its best days has transformed into something far uglier.” The “slur is so vile — predicated on violence by law enforcement, unlike ethnic jabs that insult food or culture — that it has never crossed over into mainstream English.”

Read more

‘Why are we still pretending Big Tech cares about our classrooms?’

Liz Shulman at the Chicago Tribune

The “field of education depends on human interaction, and the quality of instruction kids get should depend on an administrator’s human assessment rather than a machine’s,” says Liz Shulman. Kids “deserve protection in school. Instead, AI companies are furiously signing contracts with school districts.” If “Big Tech companies truly cared about kids and educators as they claim to, they would give money to public schools (beyond free Chromebooks and access to AI), which remain massively underfunded in practically every state.”

Read more

What happened

AI company Anthropic has discovered three separate incidents in which its Claude model accessed the internet and hacked into other organizations’ systems without Anthropic’s knowledge, the company said Thursday. The security breaches, which happened during testing, follow the recent revelation that competitor OpenAI’s technology had hacked into AI platform Hugging Face.

Who said what

Anthropic and its testing partner accidentally “left the models with live internet access,” The Wall Street Journal said. So Claude “didn’t break out of a sandbox; it simply wandered out of systems where the sandbox didn’t exist.” The lesson is “not necessarily that AI has developed a fundamentally new attack capability,” cyber security expert David Allott told the BBC, but that AI agents can “combine capabilities, obtain credentials and system access to take actions autonomously.”

“We need to change how we model such threats as AI capabilities advance,” Anthropic said in a blog post.

What next?

Expect more calls for better safeguarding around AI development, which “may be moving much faster than society is ready for,” CNN said.

One company in Austin, Texas, claims to have found a new solution to school shooters: drones. Mithril Defense is currently designing pepper-spraying drones, inspired by the Ukrainian military’s successful drone program, that the company says can respond to an active shooter within seconds. But while some are lauding the idea, others feel that adding this technology into schools might bring more problems than solutions.

‘It gives another set of eyes and ears’

The drone program developed by Mithril, called Campus Guardian Angel, provides an “elite, on-site safety response capability that works alongside school safety teams, confronting any active shooter threat,” the company’s website said. The drones are flown remotely and can reportedly arrive at a shooter’s location in 15 seconds. Upon engaging, the drones will “unload pepper rounds and are capable of hitting the shooter at a speed of up to 70 mph,” said The Independent.

The drones, currently being provided to schools in Colorado, Florida and Georgia, are “equipped with non-lethal effects, flown by several of the top drone pilots in the world and are supported by an elite team of former military operators, law enforcement and first responders,” Justin Marston, the founder and CEO of Mithril, told The Independent. These types of responses “matter and save lives during an active shooter situation.”

Law enforcement has lauded the use of these drones. “It gives another set of eyes and ears of the campus that I can't see all the time,” Deputy Trevor Autrey, the school resource officer at Deltona High School in Deltona, Florida, told WPTV West Palm Beach. Non-police officials were similarly enthusiastic. “As principal, I’m really excited about having this enhanced security on our campus,” Deltona High School Principal Dr. Christina Lapnow said to WPTV.

‘I have some really serious reservations’

For all those who support the drone program, others say they may not be as effective as tech enthusiasts hope — and could cause additional safety issues. The drones “might accidentally target a fleeing student instead of a shooter” or “remote pilots, in a split-second decision, might mistake a law enforcement officer for a shooter, especially if teachers initiate a false alarm,” Curtis Lavarello, the head of the advocacy firm School Safety Advocacy Council, said to The Washington Post.

It is “almost like where gaming and school safety collide,” Lavarello told the Post. “I have some really serious reservations about the deployment of drones in schools.” Other experts have argued that “low-tech measures, like simply locking external doors, are just as effective,” said the outlet. If schools “spend significant resources on technologies designed to respond after shooting begins, we have to ask what we’re not investing in instead,” Jaclyn Corin, a survivor of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, told the Post.

Others connected with that shooting seem to agree. “These drones aren’t patrolling; they just pop up when needed. So that’s part of the problem,” Tony Montalto, whose daughter Gina died in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas attack, told WPTV. “We need to focus on the prevention piece rather than the reaction piece.” The larger approach “seems to reflect that part of America which says the way to address recurrent school shootings” is “not with stricter gun control laws,” said Moisés Ávila at Barron’s, but “rather with weaponry, such as giving teachers guns.”

China is not beating the U.S. in the artificial intelligence race, at least not yet. But the country’s AI products are cheaper and good enough that a number of American AI users are shifting away from homegrown products. Enter a Silicon Valley panic. The U.S. government may take action, and a new Chinese model — Moonshot AI’s Kimi K3 — may be the trip wire.

‘Something good enough’

Kimi K3 can “allegedly beat some of the best systems built by U.S. companies at a fraction of the cost,” said The Verge. It is the latest in a series of cheap Chinese-made “open-weight” AI models that “anyone can download, inspect, modify and run on their own infrastructure,” said Microsoft. This presents a different approach from closed-source “proprietary platforms” like Gemini, Claude and ChatGPT; the Chinese method challenges the conventional wisdom that “leading-edge AI requires heavy spending on data centers and the advanced chips” used by U.S. companies, said CNN.

The Chinese open-weight models are “increasingly almost as good as closed systems made by leading U.S. companies,” which is why a “growing number of Americans” are moving to the Chinese systems, said The Associated Press. Kimi K3 “just seems snappier” than Anthropic’s Claude Fable chatbot, Mozilla chief technology officer Raffi Krikorian said to the outlet. Other Chinese open-weight models lack the “overall, full-range capabilities” of the products made by American companies, said the AP. But AI users “just don’t need” expensive U.S.-made AI products, technology executive Curt Meinhold told the outlet. “We need something good enough.”

‘Full AI communism’

Some American AI executives are “sounding the alarm” about the rise of open-weight models, said The Wall Street Journal. The Chinese models represent “full AI communism,” in which governments provide artificial intelligence as “digital public infrastructure” rather than a “market product,” OpenAI’s Dean Ball said on X. The White House may soon decide to “create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models” as a result.

Others disagree. Restricting access to open-weight models “wouldn’t stop their proliferation — but would weaken U.S. startups” that use the technology, a coalition of 200 smaller tech companies argued last week in a letter to administration officials, per Politico. Regulation would be “great for Anthropic. We’re all going to have to spend money on Anthropic,” Suhail Doshi, the founder of AI infrastructure startup Particle, said to the outlet.

The White House is “showing signs it could ban cutting-edge Chinese AI models,” said Axios. Administration officials last year considered an executive order mandating that U.S. firms could “only host Chinese models if they could guarantee security and take liability if it were breached.” The ascendance of Kimi K3 is “reigniting” those old regulatory efforts. An example: The White House this week banned Chinese-made “humanoid and quadruped robots” to “protect the U.S. AI build-out,” said Reuters.

A mathematician has somewhat unceremoniously announced that he has disproven an almost 90-year-old problem — with the help of Anthropic’s artificial intelligence model. The announcement sent waves through social media and the inner circles of mathematics, as the latest in a series of AI-driven mathematical achievements that shook the field and called future math into question.

What math problem did AI tackle?

The Jacobian conjecture is “false,” Harvard University mathematician and Anthropic employee Levent Alpoge said on X, thanking his “close friend Akhil for asking about it” and his “other close friend Fable” for “working during the World Cup final.” Attached was a mathematical formula, a counterexample to the decades-old problem. Despite the fact the problem “bedeviled highly accomplished mathematicians for almost 90 years,” the conjecture “proved no obstacle” for Anthropic’s “latest frontier AI model,” said Mashable.

A conjecture is an “idea that some mathematicians believe is true,” but nobody has been “able to prove or disprove,” said mathematician Melissa Lee at The Conversation. This algebraic geometry theory suggests that a “certain type of mathematical function would also work in reverse” and was “formally set out” by Ott-Heinrich Keller in 1939, said New Scientist. It was one of 18 “fiendishly difficult problems for mathematicians to tackle in the 21st century,” according to a list curated by mathematician Stephen Smale in 1998.

The AI-generated counterexample that Alpoge shared online is the “latest in a series of AI-driven mathematical breakthroughs,” said Fortune. The technology’s “progress (or assault)” on unsolved mathematics has “compounded rapidly since mid-2025,” when models first solved “five of six problems” at the International Mathematical Olympiad.

After that, OpenAI’s model disproved an “80-year-old Erdos conjecture on combinatorial geometry” in May. In June, more than a dozen researchers from 15 universities published a declaration on AI and mathematics, urging their colleagues to “set guardrails around transparency, attribution and peer review” before AI “reshapes what mathematical knowledge even means,” Fortune added. Mathematicians, “relegated to the role of shepherd,” are left to watch AI “close these questions one-by-one, reaching places where the human mind can’t follow.” The mathematicians’ reaction is a “now familiar mixture of dread and amazement.”

What does this mean for the future of math?

The significance of the AI’s discovery varies depending on whom you ask. The counterexample did not “cause me to update my priors about what AI can and can’t do," professor and mathematician Andrew Blumberg said to Mashable. This is “exactly the kind of thing I would expect AI to be able to do.”

The counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture is still a significant achievement for AI in mathematics, Blumberg said, but there’s a difference between providing proof of a mathematical problem and showing a singular counterexample that disproves it. In other words, the counterexample “tells us essentially nothing.” Just that there are a lot of polynomials (a math equation that has numbers and letters representing variables). It’s “hard for people to check them all, but it’s not hard for machines.”

Among other “recent AI-assisted breakthroughs,” the Jacobian conjecture counterexample stands out for being “remarkably simple,” Lee said at The Conversation. The difficulty in finding the solution seems to have “lain not in an intricate construction or a lengthy proof” but rather in finding a good way of “navigating an enormous search space of possible polynomial mappings to find one with the right properties.” AI, this suggests, may “prove to be just as valuable for discovering unexpected mathematical objects as it is for constructing proofs.” What this means for the “future of mathematics and human mathematicians” remains to be seen.

For some, the recent developments with AI foreshadow a future of “increasingly capable AI models that will solve ever more complex problems,” said New Scientist. AI can “already produce master’s degrees in mathematics,” mathematician Ivan Fesenko at Westlake University in China said to the outlet. In a year, it will produce “Ph.D. degrees in mathematics.” Then the question arises, “do we really need so many mathematicians around if AI can do such things so nicely?”

What happened

Former trillionaire Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company x.AI has filed a lawsuit against Minnesota’s “first-in-the-nation law” banning programs and applications that “create and post deepfake videos or images of people naked without their consent,” said MPR News. Those found in violation of Minnesota’s anti-nudification rule risk fines of “$500,000 for each unlawful access, download or use,” per the law’s text.

Who said what

The AI company did not dispute that the state has “valid interests” in barring the “dissemination of artificially generated nude images of people without their consent,” said Bloomberg Law. Rather, it argued that Minnesota’s rule goes “far beyond that goal” and exposes a “wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions.”

What next?

Musk’s suit holds that Minnesota’s law is “unconstitutional” and should either be “placed on hold while the case proceeds” or “struck down entirely,” said MPR News. The provision is set to go into effect on August 1. If and when it does, x.AI has threatened to “limit services for users in the state.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul understands what her constituents want, said Sara Pequeño in USA Today. The Democrat recently imposed a one-year moratorium on the construction of large AI data centers, giving state regulators breathing space to write new rules intended to limit the effect these “gigantic eyesores” have on power grids, water supplies, and local communities. It’s the “right move—and a politically savvy one.” While many lawmakers support data center projects, claiming they’ll “bring jobs and economic activity to their municipalities,” voters aren’t buying it. They know these buildings are noisy, generate a lot of air pollution, use up tons of water, and are causing electricity bills to skyrocket. More Democrats should follow Hochul’s example, said Tressie McMillan Cottom in The New York Times. In our “virulently partisan” era, “rage against data centers” is one of the only issues that unites ordinary voters on the Left and the Right. At the grassroots level, the opposition includes eco activists, soccer moms, farmers, and hardcore MAGA types. If Democrats can harness this energy and “anti-establishment sentiment,” they could create “a political movement that wins elections.”

This resistance is about more than just NIMBYism, said The Economist. A Pew survey from April found that “Americans who have merely heard of data centers are just as opposed to them as those who live within 5 miles of one.” It’s because of the fears of what data centers represent: the growth of artificial intelligence that could “doom humanity by hoovering up all its resources and paving Earth with servers.” Tech leaders are partly to blame for this mess, because they’ve spent years warning that their AI tools will “throw most people out of work” or be used to inflict “mass harm.” Now that the infrastructure needed to achieve their AI revolution “is arriving on people’s doorsteps,” who can blame Americans for wanting to slow the progress?

But this is “blocking development that would benefit” their communities, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. New York’s green mandates and resistance to building new generation plants have reduced the state’s electricity supply and caused prices to rise—not AI data centers. Hochul also leaves out the fact that “data centers can also deliver a property tax windfall” along with thousands of jobs. AI is set to be “fracking all over again,” said the New York Post. New York banned the energy-extraction practice “on the basis of bogus environmental concerns,” and as a result the state lost out on “tens of thousands of jobs and literally trillions in wealth” that went next door to Pennsylvania. Now, billions of dollars in investment are going to AI-friendly Pennsylvania, all because “New York is banning progress.”

US dominance of the AI landscape is receding with the release of Kimi K3, the newest model developed by a Chinese start-up called Moonshot AI.

Kimi K3 is as “powerful as the most advanced AI systems” from the US, such as OpenAI and Anthropic, while being “cheaper to run”, said The Telegraph. It is available for people to freely download and is an “open-weight model”. This allows developers to download it, modify it and run it on their own servers for free, “positioning it for easier adoption and a wider market globally”, said CNN.

How good is K3?

K3 was “beating” Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 model and OpenAI’s 5.5 in most coding and “general AI agent benchmarks”, according to results released by Beijing-based start-up Moonshot. This was while costing “about a third of Anthropic’s Opus 4.8”, said the Financial Times. But K3 was “falling short” of Anthropic’s Fable model.

Unlike the “closed” and “proprietary” American systems, K3’s “open nature” allows global users to “modify the system for advanced reasoning and complex software development”, said the BBC. It will be the world’s first open source model in the “three-trillion-parameter class”. A parameter refers to “learned values within a machine learning model that determine how it maps input data into outputs”, said IBM.

The release of K3 had an “immediate” market reaction, said The New York Times. The Nasdaq dropped around 1%, with investors selling shares in US companies like Intel and Nvidia, who make computer chips to power AI.

How have Anthropic and OpenAI reacted?

Anthropic and OpenAI have accused Chinese companies of “improperly harvesting data” from their systems to “accelerate” their own competing models’ development. However, after years of “operating under export controls” and “tight computing constraints”, China’s advances “cannot be explained by distillation alone”. There is “real innovation going on”, said Graham Webster, a Stanford University professor.

The “steady stream” of Chinese open-source AI models, including K3, that “rivals” the performance of “costly systems from Silicon Valley” have become the “preferred choice” for developers, said the NYT. President Trump has “repeatedly framed maintaining America’s “lead” in the “defining technological race of our time” as a “strategic imperative for preserving the country’s economic and national security”. These technological developments have “underscored the geopolitical stakes of the US-China contest for leadership”.

What does this mean for US dominance in AI?

Xi Jinping released a statement saying AI development should not be a “solo performance by a single country” but instead a “symphony of international cooperation”. He said China was “ready to work with all parties to seize the opportunities of AI development”.

US AI leaders and policy makers had taken “comfort” from “estimates that China remained six to 12 months behind”, even with Chinese open-weight models “gaining momentum”, said Axios. However, the release of Kimi K3 suggests that “cushion may have collapsed far faster than expected”. With the “entire game changed”, this could “trigger some code red for some”, said AI analyst Kim Isenberg.

American labs are “hardly out of ammunition” with OpenAI and Anthropic “racing ahead” to build newer systems like GPT-6 and Claude Opus 5. But even if the US “pulls ahead” again, China has shown it can “close the gap quickly”.

Two of the biggest tech giants are locked in a head-to-head legal battle, with Apple claiming OpenAI stole trade secrets as the AI start-up plans its first hardware devices.

Apple launched the “blockbuster lawsuit” last week, accusing OpenAI and several of its staff – formerly Apple employees – of “stealing secret hardware plans”, said the Financial Times. One of the staff named in the lawsuit is OpenAI’s head of hardware, who was “a top Apple device designer”.

The lawsuit, which doesn’t name OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, amounts to “a spectacular breakdown in the relationship” between two of Silicon Valley’s “biggest names”.

What is the background between the two?

Apple and OpenAI launched a partnership in 2024, working to integrate OpenAI technology into Apple’s voice assistant, Siri. Apple also built ChatGPT into operating systems for iPhones, iPads and Macs.

But tensions began to surface last year when OpenAI bought a hardware start-up co-founded by Jony Ive, the former chief designer at Apple – and the brains behind the iPhone. OpenAI’s $6.4 billion purchase of io Products signalled that it was “foraying into hardware”, said The Guardian.

OpenAI is working with the “design guru” to develop a line of AI devices, including a hand-held gadget similar to a smart speaker, but equipped with a camera. These are “intended to compete with the iPhone and other Apple products”, said Bloomberg. Ive is “helping lead an effort to supplant” the very device he did so much to create. Much of his design team at Apple followed him and now work either at OpenAI or on its hardware products. This “exodus” has “fuelled resentment” at Apple.

The scale of departures is “astounding”, said Business Insider. More than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI, with some being “unusually senior”. Apple is “furious” that it’s losing talent to “a scrappy start-up” that’s “refusing to stay in its lane”. Last month it unveiled its revamped Siri, which used Google’s Gemini AI model rather than OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

What does the lawsuit claim?

“OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets,” Apple wrote. The suit claims OpenAI “poached Apple employees”, said The Guardian, “coaxing them to hand over confidential material, product designs and other tightly held information”.

It names Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI’s chief hardware officer – and a former vice-president at Apple. In 2024, Tan left Apple to work on Ive’s start-up. After OpenAI purchased io Products, it appointed Tan as its own chief hardware officer. The lawsuit claims Tan took information about Apple suppliers with him.

Apple also alleges that when its employees went for job interviews at OpenAI, Tan “asked them to show up with something unusual”, said The Verge: hardware components they were working on at Apple and unreleased product samples for “show and tell sessions”.

Apple claims another former employee took an Apple laptop when he left for OpenAI, and used an authentication bug to breach the company’s internal network and download “dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files”.

After filing the lawsuit, Apple sent “a barrage” of legal warnings to about 40 of its former employees at OpenAI, looking for evidence, said the FT. These “aggressive tactics” show “just how broad and combative the legal fight could become”.

What does OpenAI say?

OpenAI says it is not aware of “any evidence that the complaint has merit”. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” said a spokesperson. But if the case goes to trial, it could “reveal the secret hardware OpenAI has long teased”, said CNET, perhaps before it is ready to launch.

Apple is seeking damages and a court order that would block OpenAI from possessing or using its trade secrets. Essentially, OpenAI is “a huge threat” to Apple, said Business Insider. It wants to either “directly challenge the iPhone, or completely replace this device as the go-to gadget of the AI era”.

OpenAI is “ridiculously well funded”, so Apple can’t easily acquire it to bring talent back into the fold. It’s also “too ambitious to swat away or subsume easily”. This explains “the intensity (or desperation?)” of Apple’s lawsuit.

The dispute also “underscores just how intertwined Apple and OpenAI have become”, said Bloomberg. “It’s an extraordinarily awkward situation, made all the more remarkable by the web of personal relationships that still connects the two companies.”

‘Structural shifts demand a new central banking mindset’

Vivekanand Jayakumar at The Hill

While the “primary objective of most central banks” is “unchanged, the post-pandemic economic landscape has evolved in ways that require policymakers to rethink how monetary policy is designed,” says Vivekanand Jayakumar. The “pandemic shock and its aftermath substantially altered underlying economic trends and gave rise to a new geopolitical reality.” Forces are “reshaping inflation dynamics, impacting economy’s growth potential, and altering monetary policy transmission mechanisms.” So “central bankers will need to exhibit greater flexibility, adaptability and forward-looking decision-making.”

Read more

‘Where did all the computer science professors go?’

Lila Shroff and Rose Horowitch at The Atlantic

AI companies are “turning into something like mini-universities,” say Lila Shroff and Rose Horowitch. As AI has “taken center stage, Silicon Valley has intensified its efforts to recruit star researchers and looked beyond computer science departments.” While “plenty of research is still happening within universities,” the “result is a flywheel.” As “more academics get sucked up by industry, the center of AI research moves further from academia, thus increasing the incentive for remaining researchers to leave.”

Read more

‘We are taking hobbies too far’

Meehika Barua at Time

Having hobbies shows that you “have the time, money and energy to spend on them,” says Meehika Barua. But we have “turned hobbies from optional leisure activities into a marker of identity.” Hobbies are “increasingly sold as a route to becoming a more interesting or successful person rather than simply a way to spend free time.” This can “leave people feeling guilty if they prefer quieter pursuits or if they discover they don’t enjoy the hobby that everyone else seems to love.”

Read more

‘He may be Trump’s only real friend. He’s quietly transforming the world.’

Andrea Bernstein at Slate

Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff “seems like Trump, a New York real estate developer turned world dealmaker,” says Andrea Bernstein. But in an administration that “privileges snarling visages, Witkoff is nearly universally described as kind or nice, a quality he has used to good diplomatic effect.” As Witkoff “presided over a tenuous ceasefire deal with Hamas and Israel, he surrounded those talks with meetings with big-name Gulf leaders.” He is “unabashed about performing diplomacy through a business lens.”

Read more

A recent study conducted by Anthropic, the creator of Claude, analysed the AI chatbot’s responses across different languages. It found that if you want a friendlier tone, you may want to switch your language settings.

Results may vary

Anthropic compared data from more than 300,000 anonymised conversations in a two-week period during May 2026, said The Decoder. The company looked into samples from the top 20 languages of Claude.ai and their three models: Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7. The results showed Claude “emphasises different values” when producing responses in different languages.

The study used the technique “dimensionality reduction” to measure the responses across four separate axes: warmth vs. rigour, depth vs. brevity, candour vs. execution and deference vs. caution. Anthropic “explicitly states” this study does not “imply that Claude intrinsically holds values”, but instead the term “values” refers to “values reflected by Claude’s behaviour and outputs”.

The warmth vs. rigour axis that studies “whether Claude leans towards expressing positivity and care for the person or emphasising accuracy and precision” saw the most fluctuation in results, said The Indian Express.

The results showed the “systematic differences” in Claude’s responses. For example, Arabic responses were shown to have “greater warmth”, meaning they contained more “polite phrasing, humour, playfulness, and affirmation”, said The Decoder. On the candour vs. execution axis, Dutch responses showed a more “honest appraisal of potential shortcomings”, said The Register.

Anthropic “isn’t yet sure” what properties caused these “linguistic differences”, said Techbrew on Instagram.

Proceed with caution

Despite the interesting results, there are some “limits” to the "explanatory power” of the study, said The Decoder. Some languages had “far more data than others” and were more “overrepresented in professional writing”, making the data not “evenly distributed”, said Anthropic.

The main point was “addressing hidden biases and language-specific gaps” when training the AI model, said The Indian Express. However, the subject “deserves further exploration” because of the “important implications” for how people use such AI products, said The Register.

Anthropic gave the example of two people using Claude to give feedback on the same business plan, one in Hindi and the other in Russian, and saw that “Claude expressed different values in how it framed its assessment”.

The study also showed the response differences across Claude’s models. Sonnet 4.6 appeared to be more affirming towards users’ ideas and “offers comfort without passing judgement”, while Opus 4.7 “openly critiques” and “questions assumptions”, said The Decoder. Sonnet 4.6 is the default free model on the Anthropic platform. Opus 4.7 is the premium paid model of Claude.

These differences remain an “open question” as Anthropic said it is “making sense of this variation” and using what it learns to “improve Claude’s behaviour”.

Across the country, people have been up in arms about the increasing ubiquity of AI data centers, but now a proposal to build a massive AI plant just steps from the Nashville Zoo has brought the subject of animal rights into the fray. As people in Nashville propose ways to stop the data center’s construction, the affected zoo animals could present a new wave of backlash against artificial intelligence.

‘Disrupt the environmental conditions’

The proposed data center, built by the Atlanta firm DC BLOX, would be located about 50 yards from the boundary of the Nashville Zoo, officials told NBC News, or just half a football field away. The zoo is “vehemently opposed to having a data center so close to animals” because the “noise could disturb its residents,” Nashville Zoo President and CEO Rick Schwartz said to NBC.

For many, the “focus of the brewing anger is how it might affect the zoo’s most endangered or prized species,” said The New York Times. Much of the concern involves the facility’s clouded leopards, a threatened species that represents one of the “crown jewels of the zoo’s conservation program.” The clouded leopard breeding enclosure would be “about 320 feet from the proposed data center’s property line.”

Officials are “particularly concerned about the potential effect of light and noise from the data center, given that animals are more sensitive than humans,” Dr. Heather Schwartz, who oversees animal health at the Nashville Zoo, told the Times. The noise could “disrupt the environmental conditions critical not only for the clouded leopard breeding program but for the more than 3,000 animals that call the zoo home,” said CNN. The facility has launched a petition to stop the data center, which currently has over 500,000 signatures.

Demanding stronger regulations

Some are worried that a data center near the Nashville Zoo could spark a larger trend, and these data centers “can have real consequences for animals,” said animal news platform The Animal Reader. Such locations near populated areas have “cooling equipment, backup generators and bright security lighting” that “can disturb wildlife, especially nocturnal animals such as bats, owls and insects,” especially in areas with large animal populations.

This has made the zoo a new focus of the political fight against data centers. After the plan was announced, an “unprecedented crowd” showed up to Nashville’s planning commission meeting as “hundreds of residents turned out to oppose data centers,” said The Tennessean. Numerous speakers “urged city leaders to slow the industry’s expansion, adopt stronger regulations and stop a proposed South Nashville data center project next to the zoo that critics say is far larger than originally disclosed.”

The fight is the “latest example of data centers getting pushback in communities nationwide, as neighbors say they don’t want to live near them or object more broadly to the direction of the tech and AI industries,” said NBC. But even amid a “bipartisan push for regulation, as well as lawsuits and opposition to tax breaks,” DC BLOX is not backing down. “We look forward to working with local officials, community members and the Nashville Zoo to minimize local impacts and to assure that there will be no health risks to residents or animals,” the company told NBC.

‘The dangerous myth of flexibility’

David Weil at The American Prospect

Schedule flexibility has become the “lynchpin of a well-traveled myth that corporations have spun to their employees, policymakers and the public,” says David Weil. But with AI being “explored as a replacement for many white-collar jobs, and the gig work model continuing its global expansion into new sectors like healthcare, information technology, staffing, hospitality and childcare, the flexibility myth now threatens the hard-won rights and protections afforded to tens of millions of working people.” While companies like “Uber and Lyft insist” that flexibility benefits their drivers, it actually “benefits Uber and Lyft.”

Read more

‘Republicans lean into anti-Asian racism ahead of midterms’

Ja’han Jones at MS NOW

Some conservatives are “resorting to anti-Asian racism and anti-Chinese xenophobia as the Republican Party faces a potential shellacking in this year’s midterms,” says Ja’han Jones. The attacks “underscore the exploitative posture that some in the GOP have taken toward Asian Americans.” Polls have “shown Americans broadly oppose President Donald Trump and the GOP’s agenda,” so it “seems the party is leaning into voter suppression gambits and overt racism as it tries to maintain power.”

Read more

‘Will Iraq’s new prime minister really take on corruption?’

Mina Al-Oraibi at Foreign Policy

Corruption has “continued to grow” in Iraq, and even “wide-ranging arrests do not represent a majority of those who have siphoned money from the Iraqi state,” says Mina Al-Oraibi. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is “personally overseeing the anti-corruption cases” and “needs to do this in part because he remains a weak candidate.” But a “wide-ranging and impartial effort to eliminate all corruption would take time,” and al-Zaidi has been in office for “less than two months.”

Read more

‘The tech bro-ification of marketing’

Miranda Shanahan at Time

The “tech bro-ification of marketing is underway,” says Miranda Shanahan. Beneath this “trend lies a broader pattern around how work is named, coded and valued.” The “marketing industry is a broad church, but decades of cultural shorthand have flattened it into something quite specific.” The “first inkling of recalibration came when tech bros suddenly started emphasizing the importance of taste.” It “might not seem that deep, but marketing’s rebrand is part of a bigger pattern.”

Read more

Google’s alliance with the film studio A24 shows how AI companies are “deepening their influence in Hollywood,” said John Semley in Wired. The tech giant’s artificial intelligence lab, DeepMind, last month announced a $75 million “research partnership” with A24, the indie studio behind critically acclaimed films such as Moonlight, Everything Everywhere All at Once, and this year’s horror megahit Backrooms. The studio says it will lean on Google’s AI expertise “to learn, iterate, and build” new tools “and workflows.” But it’s one in a “line of controversial marriages between Silicon Valley and Hollywood” that has made viewers and craftspeople uneasy. Nearly 1,000 actors, agents, and parents last week signed an open letter protesting a new clause in Hasbro’s contracts with child actors on the animated kids’ series Peppa Pig that asks them to hand over rights to their voices for AI cloning. Fans of A24, which has a reputation as a bastion for “serious artists,” are also worried that the tie-up with Google will introduce more “AI slop.”

Film lovers shouldn’t be concerned, said Brian Welk in IndieWire. This is not an “IP deal nor a data-training deal,” like the Lionsgate partnership with Runway or Disney’s stake in OpenAI. It’s a logical attempt by A24 to understand how these new tools can “support filmmakers when they are designed from the start to serve creative vision.”

AI on its own hasn’t produced anything “people would pay to see,” said Charles Pulliam-Moore in The Verge. Rather, human artists are starting to test how they “can leverage the technology in compelling ways.” Dear Upstairs Neighbors, an animated film written and directed by Pixar veteran Connie Qin He, was originally conceived on paper using acrylics. But Google AI brought it to life and further enhanced it “with stylized assets” that turned out to be very successful. AI is everywhere in Hollywood, said Jake Kanter in Deadline, you just don’t know it. It’s being used surreptitiously “to smooth rough edges, alter dialogue, and polish visual effects,” akin to cosmetic surgery. Producers are “terrified of audience and industry backlash.” But if the technology “is genuinely helping creatives make better movies,” then audiences should be educated about how it’s used.

The fact is that Hollywood doesn’t yet have a grip on its feelings about AI, said Aaron Pruner in CNET. Some industry legends like Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino “look down” on the technology. Others like Martin Scorsese are embracing it. There are “very real concerns that AI will make” many Hollywood careers obsolete, and that “stress is palpable.” But not everyone has given up hope that “strong and unique storytelling” can still “cut through the slop.” Better to “get familiar with the tools,” because “AI is obviously here to stay.”

Who opposes data centers?

Most Americans. A recent Gallup poll found that 71% of voters, including 75% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans, don’t want a data center built in their area. Hostility to these artificial intelligence facilities is “the most bipartisan issue since beer,” Milwaukee-based comedian Charlie Berens said at a recent rally against a 700,000-square-foot Meta facility in Port Washington, Wis. Opponents of these warehouse-like complexes, which are filled with energy-hungry computer servers, are racking wins. At least 75 projects worth about $130 billion were blocked or canceled in the first three months of 2026. After a 247,000-square-foot data center was proposed in Monterey Park, Calif., voters there last month overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure permanently banning such projects. Theirs is the first U.S. city with such a prohibition, but at least 67 other towns have temporary bans. Politicians who support data centers are paying the price at the polls: Stuart Adams, president of Utah’s state senate, and two local commissioners lost their GOP primaries last week after helping to approve a 62-square-mile facility in northwestern Utah. “Everybody who touched the data center went down,” said Brenna Williams, an anti-data-center campaigner. “People just wanted to send a message.”

Why do people want to block these projects?

For some, it’s the vast amount of water and energy they use. Water is used to cool servers, which can get dangerously hot, and a large facility can guzzle up to 5 million gallons a day—about as much as a town of 50,000 people. In areas already struggling with drought, such as Utah, many residents fear the needs of data centers will be put before their own. Data centers also strain power grids. The nation’s more than 4,000 data centers now consume 6% of all U.S. electricity, up from 4% two years ago, and a single large-scale facility can use about 1 gigawatt of electricity, enough to power 750,000 homes. With data centers being built faster than new power sources are coming online, utility bills are rising fast. In states with a high concentration of data centers, such as Virginia, electricity prices have spiked 267% in five years. There are other concerns: the pollution pumped out by on-site generators, the constant hum of cooling systems, and the sheer size and ugliness of the buildings. Opposition to data centers is “rooted in the one thing that has always united Americans,” said Megan Mullin, a professor of public policy at UCLA: “Our deep affinity for where we live.”

What do AI firms say?

They argue that fears around water and energy use are overblown, and that data centers are a net gain for communities. The build-out of 3,000 planned facilities is expected to create 4.7 million temporary construction-related jobs, according to a Meta-backed policy group. It also projects that some 700,000 permanent jobs will be created to operate and manage those facilities. To reduce the environmental impact of their centers, firms including Microsoft and OpenAI have pledged to slash water use, and microchip makers such as Nvidia are designing more energy-efficient processors. But opposition to data centers is likely to remain intense.

Why is that?

Because that opposition is motivated in part by hostility to artificial intelligence. A June survey by consultancy Milltown Partners found only 8% of data center opponents actually live near a facility, and that 63% have a negative view of AI. That suggests data centers are a stand-in for anger at Big Tech and AI, which some industry leaders have warned could result in mass unemployment and—in a worst-case scenario—humanity’s extinction. The opposition “isn’t happening in a vacuum,” said Milltown’s Tom Brookes. “The AI transformation is arriving at a time when Americans already feel angry, insecure, and pessimistic.” In some cases, that anger is turning into violence. In April, an unknown attacker fired 13 shots into the home of an Indianapolis councilman who’d voted in favor of an AI facility, and left a note that read “No Data Centers.”

How are lawmakers responding to the backlash?

Some want a pause in construction. New York’s Democratic-led state legislature in May passed a one-year moratorium on new data centers; it has yet to be signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul. In April, Maine’s Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed similar legislation. The populist right is also pushing back on data centers, despite President Trump issuing an executive order last year to speed their construction. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill in May barring utilities from shifting data center costs to ordinary ratepayers. And red-tape averse Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last month issued sweeping data center regulation recommendations for the state legislature to pass in its next session, including mandating “closed loop” cooling systems that reuse water and requiring new facilities to contribute to the state’s electricity supply.

Is a halt on construction likely?

No, because too many officials want a slice of the money being poured into the buildout; six Big Tech companies will spend an estimated $1 trillion on data centers in 2027. Few politicians on either the Left or Right have backed calls for a pause or a ban; more are pushing measures they claim will reduce the impact of data center development. Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is set to sign a tax on data center energy usage, capped at $600 million a year, while Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine recently paused tax breaks for AI facilities after a government report found they cost the state nearly $1.6 billion in lost revenue last year. But those measures won’t stop protests by anti-data-center campaigners, who are demanding a meaningful crackdown on the industry. “I’m frustrated,” said Annette Singh of Hilliard, Ohio, who says a huge new Amazon data center has ruined her once peaceful neighborhood. “I want better politicians.”

The hype of artificial intelligence is running up against pricey realities, at least for now. MacBooks and Xboxes are getting more expensive due to “AI inflation.” Central bankers are warning the AI boom could soon trigger a financial crash. Ford, meanwhile, has hired hundreds of engineers to do the work that artificial intelligence software could not. It has opened debate as to whether the benefits of AI are worth the costs.

What did the commentators say?

The mass buildout of data centers has created the “global shortage of memory and storage chips” behind the new device price hikes, said CBS News. MacBook Pros are going from $1,699 to $1,999, while the entry-level Xbox is rising to $499 from $399. The demand from tech giants such as Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Oracle leaves fewer chips for “regular consumer devices,” Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives said to the outlet. “That just further drives up prices.”

That inflation is typical of any “technological revolution,” Jennifer Schonberger said at Yahoo Finance. Big investment in new tech puts “pressures on resources with a lot of demand chasing a limited supply.” For now, AI inflation is “screwing with the rest of the economy,” said John Herrman at New York magazine. Once-accessible goods “seem to be slipping out of reach” of ordinary Americans, which “could meaningfully contribute to an already apocalyptic” national mood.

But the data center surge could come to a sudden, thudding halt if those big companies do not soon see a return on their investment. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) on Sunday warned that an end to the data center “spending spree” could “rattle financial markets and damage the global economy,” said the Financial Times. There are “instructive parallels” in the dotcom boom of the 1990s and the buildout of British railways in the 19th century, the BIS said in its annual economic report. “These episodes ended with an eventual reversal in investment, inducing economy-wide recessions.”

The payoffs are fuzzy. Ford has hired 350 “veteran engineers” to “reprogram the artificial intelligence tools that weren’t getting the job done,” said Bloomberg. AI is a “fantastic tool,” Ford executive Charles Poon said to reporters last week, per the outlet. But it is “only as good as the information you use to train it.” Ford’s dramatic shift to AI was a “grave mistake” that affected the company’s quality control, said Danni Santana at Moneywise. That happens “when you overcommit to the technology without properly training it.” The company will still use AI, but its experience demonstrates that the technology cannot “completely replace humans in the workforce” for now.

What next?

Businesses that enthusiastically embraced artificial intelligence are now trying to find a balance. Many firms urged their employees to “integrate AI tools into their work” only to see their “AI spending bills double or triple,” said The Wall Street Journal. Executives at enterprises like Uber, Meta and Microsoft are now looking to “steer workers toward cheaper, homegrown tools” and help those employees “hone their skills.”

The Supreme Court has released a slew of opinions to mark the end of its current term, and one of them could prove to be a landmark case for personal protections. The Court has ruled that privacy laws must protect against widespread searches of phone location data — a decision that could prove to have a monumental impact on future Fourth Amendment cases.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Court’s opinion in the case, Chatrie v. United States, holds that people have an “expectation of privacy from the government as their mobile devices track them throughout their daily activities,” said Politico, even if this data has already been shared with tech companies like Google and Apple. The crux of the case stems from a 2019 armed robbery at a Virginia bank and how police tracked down the robber.

During the hunt for the robbery suspect, police used a cellular data search warrant called a geofence warrant to “capture location data from all the phones in the vicinity of the bank for 30 minutes before and after the robbery,” said The New York Times. The eventual suspect was found using the geofence warrant, but he argued that this type of broad search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, because innocent people’s data could also be obtained using the search.

The Trump administration pushed back, contending that users do not have an “expectation of privacy after voluntarily sharing their location data with companies like Google,” said Politico. But the Supreme Court did not buy that argument, ruling that “sensitive data scooped up by geofence warrants counts as a Fourth Amendment search, and offers individuals a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if they may be in a public area,” said The Guardian. The 6-3 ruling included dissents from conservative-leaning Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett.

What is the bigger picture?

The Court did not completely strike down the use of geofence warrants, instead sending the matter back to the Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether these warrants are actually constitutional violations. “It is therefore now up to the court of appeals to decide whether, at each step of the search process, the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion.

The Court’s decision could weigh the scales in determining whether the lower court eventually cuts down geofence warrants. Privacy advocates have “raised concerns about geofence warrants, calling them a form of dragnet surveillance because the information is not just about one suspect, but anyone who was in the location in question,” said NBC News. These advocates have “warned that such warrants could be used to target disfavored political groups, including protesters.”

In the meantime, while the lower court decides, the Supreme Court’s ruling “narrows the scope of what cloud-stored data the federal government can lawfully obtain without an individualized warrant,” said The Hill. Policing could also be affected by the ruling, as geofence warrants are “typically employed by investigators when they know specific details of a crime but don’t yet have a suspect.” Not allowing them to proceed could make solving crimes using cellular data more difficult.

With its $22 billion deal to acquire Roku earlier this month, Fox suddenly became a “rather ferocious” player in “the next phase of the streaming wars,” said The Economist. Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing media empire had been a “noncombatant” in the years-long melee, preferring to keep “its powder dry while companies such as Disney blew gazillions on building streaming services to compete with Netflix.” But it has been quietly amassing a substantial streaming portfolio, beginning in 2020 with Tubi—a free, ad-supported service now with as many viewers as Paramount and NBCUniversal’s Peacock—and launching Fox One last year. With Roku, which sells smart TVs and streaming hardware and software, and has its own streaming channel, Fox would become the third-largest streaming company behind YouTube and Netflix, commanding “11% of streaming viewership in America.”

Fox is finally looking beyond cable, said David Dayen in The American Prospect. Only 36% of households in the U.S. had linear TV in 2025, according to Pew Research Center data, down from 85% a decade ago. And only 16% of those cable subscribers are under 30. “It’s a matter of time” before these whole cable systems “are shut down.” Roku’s easy-to-use hardware has made it “essentially the cable box of the 21st century.” This deal gives Fox “control of that box.” We’ve hit “a turning point in the streaming wars,” said Sara Fischer in Axios, which is no longer a race to gather the most subscribers. It’s a race to see who has a bigger “competitive edge against Netflix.” For Fox, that means “bringing more eyeballs to its live programming” like news and sports, “and selling more digital TV ads.”

“What a shame,” said Devindra Hardawar in Engadget. Roku began as “an innovative streaming platform” that “pushed TVs to be smarter.” Now it’ll be just “another cog in the Murdoch empire,” soon to be “flooded with Fox News content and ads.” That it comes so shortly after Paramount, and its right-wing ownership, bought Warner Bros. Discovery is “yet another sign of media consolidation” that will “ultimately make our lives worse.”

This is Lachlan Murdoch’s biggest move since taking over from his 95-year-old father as Fox CEO in 2019, said Chris Hughes in Bloomberg. And it’s a risky gamble. Yes, he “had to do something sooner or later to address Fox’s reliance on legacy cable TV.” But this attempt “to future-proof Fox is looking incredibly expensive.” Fox offered $160 a share, “nearly 40% above Roku’s stock price.” That’s a $7 billion premium. “Cue a savage market reaction,” which slashed $4 billion off Fox’s valuation. Lachlan has spent the past couple years “tidying up his family’s messy ownership of the media empire,” which had lifted Fox’s stock price. We’ll have to wait and see if this “plot twist” pays off.

Kalshi and Polymarket currently dominate the prediction market industry, but one of the wealthiest men on Earth wants to change the status quo. Meta is developing an experimental prediction app at the direction of CEO Mark Zuckerberg. While Kalshi and Polymarket are both billion-dollar brands, the already controversial prediction market could be turned on its head if the man controlling Facebook and Instagram gets his way.

What is Meta working on?

Zuckerberg has ordered a small team at Meta to “create a smartphone app similar to Polymarket and Kalshi,” according to The New York Times. The app is being referred to within Meta as Arena and “would function independently from Meta’s social networking apps, which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger.” Meta hopes to “grow the app by leveraging its large social networking audiences and directing them toward using it.”

As with the other major prediction apps, users will be allowed to “guess the outcome of real-world events,” said NPR. But at least for the time being, Arena would have one big difference from most prediction platforms: Unlike Kalshi and Polymarket, users on Meta’s app “would not wager money, and the app would probably rely on a video-game-like points system instead,” said the Times. However, Meta has “not ruled out the eventual use of real money betting.”

There will also reportedly be an AI aspect to Meta’s app, as it will use “Llama, the company’s large language model, to automatically generate questions from trending topics,” said NPR. Arena is not the first time Meta has tried to get into the prediction marketplace; in 2020, the company “released an app called Forecast, a crowdsourced prediction market app where people could guess about what might happen in the world, including predictions about the course of the pandemic.” The app did not take off and was shut down in 2022.

What does this mean for prediction markets?

Zuckerberg’s bet comes at a time when the industry is booming. Prediction markets “surged in popularity during the 2024 U.S. presidential election and have evolved ​into an asset class that lets investors wager on a variety of events, from monetary policy to sports tournaments,” said Reuters. The entire market could reach more than $1 trillion in value by 2030, according to wealth management firm Bernstein.

But the industry has also “drawn ​increasing scrutiny as well-timed trades ahead of ​President Donald Trump’s major policy surprises have potentially led to millions of dollars in profits ​for unknown traders,” said Reuters. It is possible that a prediction market app from Meta could create similar scrutiny. Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to mind this, though, and probably wants to follow the lead of “other social media sites” like X, which “forged a partnership with Polymarket last summer” and have “sought to capitalize on the industry,” said TechCrunch.

Adding another prediction tool to the mix could also further complicate legal proceedings, which are already fairly complicated. States have “begun to sue prediction markets over what they allege are violations of gambling laws,” said TechCrunch. In yet another twist, the “current administration, which is decidedly pro-prediction market, has sued states for having sued prediction markets.” But even as these cases progress, the industry has continually “fueled big profits.”

If a hacker steals your password, you can create a new one, but if someone gains access to your fingerprint or iris data, you can hardly replace your fingers or eyes. But a new study has shown promise with a technique that allows users to “update” their fingerprints, which could make us all safer online.

Spy novels

Concern about the security of using fingerprints instead of passwords has grown this month amid reports that scammers could extract close-ups of fingerprints from social media photos and “enhance them with AI”, said Moneywise. The criminals could then use the victim’s unique fingerprint ID to gain access to their accounts, or launch identity theft and phishing attacks, although they would still need access to a physical scanner, like a smartphone unlock key, to use the cloned fingerprint.

It “sounds like the stuff out of spy novels or ‘Mission Impossible’”, Vyas Sekar, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, told CBS News, but “in theory, it’s possible, especially if people are posting high-resolution images”. In 2014, a hacker claimed to have cloned a fingerprint of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, then Germany’s defence minister, using close-up photos taken at a press event.

‘Scrambled and compressed’

A study in the International Journal of Computational Vision and Robotics has found that “irreversible identity theft” can be “largely avoided” by giving users a chance to “reset” fingerprints and other biometrics, said TechXplore.

The method is “similar to changing a password”, said Knowridge. Rather than storing a person’s original fingerprint or other biometric information directly, it transforms their data into a protected version. To do this, it identifies unique features in a fingerprint image, such as distinctive patterns and points, and “uses mathematical methods to convert these features into a different form that is difficult to reverse-engineer”. The data is then “further scrambled and compressed” into a secure digital version.

In this form, it can still verify a person’s identity, but the original biometric data is hidden. If the protected version is ever compromised, it can be “cancelled and replaced”. Even if hackers gained access to the stored information, the user would not be permanently exposed.

For years, philosophy graduates have been the “butt of jokes about unemployable degrees”, said Thibault Spirlet in Business Insider. Now, they can earn six-figure salaries as the “world’s most powerful AI companies” try to “shape how machines think and behave”.

High-profile philosophers are already “embedded” in top AI firms. Amanda Askell is resident philosopher at Anthropic, and Iason Gabriel and Henry Shevlin work at Google DeepMind. OpenAI’s Sam Altman also claimed that the company employed “hundreds of moral philosophers” when designing rules for ChatGPT. But there is rising suspicion that there are ulterior motives at play.

‘Arc of redemption’

“Unemployed coders take note,” said The Economist: “there seems to be no shortage of work for philosophers of AI.” There are “thorny problems” in the developing field – “a philosopher’s favourite sort”.

Some “ancient” philosophical considerations are at the core of the contemporary tech industry. The idea of “Socratic ignorance” – that wisdom is an individual realising the extent of what they do not know – is a major principle in AI development used to avoid “sycophancy”.

Deliberating whether a system should follow deontological aims (“strict rules” against “lying, coercion and treating people as a means rather than an end”), or consequentialist ones (which weigh “costs against benefits”) is also a common dilemma for developers.

Philosophy is key to safety practices, too. Implementing the concept of “AI constitutionalism” – where legally or morally authoritative texts are used as a base of “scaffolding” to direct the system – aims to prevent “ominous behaviour” from the models.

Anthropic revealed earlier this year that its Claude constitution included sources as “diverse as Immanuel Kant, Apple’s terms of service and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. This has been nicknamed the company’s “soul doc”.

A rise in demand for philosophers has also coincided with a decline in admissions for computer science students, said Lance Eliot in Forbes. Arguably, computer science has become a “dead-end endeavour”, creating “automation that replaces the humans who made it all possible”. AI programming once held the “promise of big bucks and a stellar career”. This may just be a minor “course correction”, as no doubt degrees that directly relate to AI will remain important, but nonetheless, philosophy is experiencing an “amazing arc of redemption”.

But influence goes both ways and is “not limited to Silicon Valley”, said Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly on Observer. Philosophy is impacting tech, but the demands of the AI industry are reshaping the “long-standing” landscape of philosophical thought. Academia is “rapidly adapting” as foundational questions regarding consciousness, morality, minds and computation have taken on a “new urgency”.

Suspicion and ‘ethics-washing’

The two disciplines of computer science and philosophy have “never been quite as entangled” nor as “fraught” as they are now, said Lila Shroff in The Atlantic. In a fundamental sense, the “careful thought” of philosophy is “at odds with the frenetic pace of AI”. In turn, some experts are concerned that “misaligned incentives” will encourage a “rush of low-quality work”.

There is a “degree of suspicion” in the academic world about philosophers migrating to AI firms, said Joel Khalili in Wired. The whole industry poses significant ethical risks. These programmes could be used to “develop new weapons of mass destruction, undermine democracy, or entrench existing social iniquities”.

But the greatest fear is of “ethics-washing”. Hiring philosophers to train systems not only demonstrates to the public that these models are so advanced that they warrant the attention of “serious people”, but also shows that companies are “outwardly performing a commitment to AI safety”.

In a broader sense, there are growing fears that philosophical research is becoming an “extension of the marketing function” of labs. And even if philosophers are given “free rein” in tech companies, ultimately, they are “accountable to investors and shareholders”. Essentially, “if a for-profit AI company signs your pay cheque, might that compromise your research?”

It’s about time Europe started “flexing its innovation muscles,” said John Thornhill in the Financial Times. “In spite of the ambient Euro-gloom,” the continent still boasts extraordinary economic strengths. It is home to “thousands of world-class scientists and researchers” who are seeding “a vibrant early-stage startup ecosystem.” It’s also fast becoming a worldwide leader in areas such as material sciences, pharmaceuticals, and robotics. “If it could create a VC money-mobilization machine on a par with the U.S.,” things would really transform. To that end, the European Commission recently published new legislation that it says will “encourage more investment” in areas like data centers and chipmaking, which is “a welcome sign.” The commission also revealed a new framework to reduce reliance on the U.S. and China; that will be harder to achieve. The reality is that Europe still “remains inextricably dependent on U.S. technology,” and it won’t win in a fight with the Trump administration. But it is at least “finally flicking the switch from defensive regulation to creative innovation.”

Europe is right to worry, said The Economist. “The grip of American tech is, if anything, growing tighter.” French firms alone buy more than $50 billion “in software and cloud services annually from Uncle Sam’s tech giants.” Policymakers fear the U.S. could one day “wield tech as a geopolitical weapon, in the form of a kill switch that can turn off services.” Another concern is that Europe will get left behind economically if it can’t compete in the AI race against America and China, “which reaches into many sectors where Europe remains strong.” But building tech ecosystems up from scratch “is hard,” and “America’s strong economic momentum makes it harder still.” Unplugging from U.S. tech entirely is “probably an impossible task,” said Matt Burgess in Wired. The European Parliament has switched the default search engine on its devices from Google to a French alternative, and many French government workers are using home-grown open-source office software. But Europe is “deeply intertwined with U.S.-based technology firms,” especially those that do cloud computing, AI, cybersecurity, and mobile operating systems.

European businesses fear “the EU’s efforts to wean the continent off American technology could backfire,” said Chris Dorrell in The Times (U.K.). The new legislation includes a mandatory scoring system designed to rank the safety of foreign tech systems that some entrepreneurs have already likened to “another invisible compliance tax.” Europe also needs to tread carefully here, said the Financial Times in an editorial. “Making its economy more dynamic” is critical, but “it must avoid antagonizing” a Trump White House “that views EU regulation as aimed squarely at stifling U.S. dynamism.” In a “dog-eat-dog world,” Washington will be “ready to use its tech supremacy to exert leverage.”

It’s funny what the pressure of a ticking clock can do to a prime minister, said Hannah Barnes in The New Statesman. Just a few months ago, when more than 60 Labour MPs signed an open letter calling for a social media ban for under-16s, Keir Starmer wasn’t convinced. His own teenage children, he told MPs, had benefitted from using social media.

But with a leadership challenge looming, the panicking PM has suddenly “latched” on to this popular policy. He announced this week that, from next year, under-16s would be banned from social media platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X and Instagram. “I am not prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children,” he declared.

Fencing the ocean

Strong rhetoric, said Christopher Snowdon in The Critic, yet this policy “has all the hallmarks of another government failure”. In Australia, a similar ban has proven almost totally ineffectual. Some 70% of parents whose children used social media before the ban say they still do so. Australia's e-safety commissioner, who is in charge of enforcing the ban, has said that it's like trying to “fence the ocean”.

There are countless reasons why blanket bans don’t work, said Chris Stokel-Walker in The Independent. You have to outwit 14-year-olds armed with VPNs, older siblings, and “group chats full of instructions”. Age verification is difficult. And even if you do get the kids off big social media sites, they “don’t suddenly take up whittling”. They move to darker, harder-to-regulate parts of the web: to Discord servers, private groups. “A serious government would force platforms to change their products”, as the campaigner Ian Russell has urged, so that they don’t pummel children with harmful content. “But this is a dead-duck administration grasping for a legacy.”

‘Multi-front’ battle

Besides, whatever happened to parenting, asked Daniel Hannan in the Daily Mail. Why use the “heavy hand” of the state, when the tide is already turning and most people now limit their kids’ screen time?

If only it were that easy, said Sam Leith in The Spectator. Like millions of other exhausted parents, I spend every day waging a “multi-front” battle against the screens: the iPhone and iPad, computer and PlayStation. I’ve set time limits, banned sites at the router, used third-party blockers. And yet still my children’s brains are being rotted by “AI slop, vacuous influencers” and silly videos, while I worry about far more damaging content. So, even if I have doubts about how it will work, I love the idea of the ban – like nine out of ten British parents consulted.

Until now, we’ve been fighting against the world’s most powerful tech companies almost totally unarmed, said Isabel Oakeshott in The Daily Telegraph. At last, the PM is giving us a “half-decent” weapon. Of course some children will get round the ban, as they do with underage drinking. But we haven’t abandoned the law on that, have we? I cannot wait to tell my teens “that lounging around on their screens is ‘literally illegal’”.

‘Tech’s private subsea cables are a threat to everyone else’

Elisabeth Braw at the Financial Times

For “decades, the world’s undersea cables have been owned by various companies,” but now U.S. “tech giants are installing their own cables — primarily for their own data traffic,” says Elisabeth Braw. This “risks creating a two-tier system on the seabed and dangerous dependencies on America.” Traditional “cable owners will continue to transport general traffic, while hyperscalers will transport their own.” It’s “like asking locals to look after a road open to all while a few rich citizens operate their own.”

Read more

‘Pope Leo’s visit lays bare Spain’s tangled politics of faith and migration’

Santiago Zabala and Claudio Gallo at Al Jazeera

Pope Leo XIV’s visit to Spain “exposed the tension between” Spanish politics and the “Church’s own teaching on migrants, war and human dignity,” say Santiago Zabala and Claudio Gallo. Leo’s “speech to the Spanish parliament” summoned a “Catholic tradition that measured power by its treatment of the vulnerable.” In a “country now convulsed by the politics of immigration, no one could miss what kind of politics that history was meant to indict.”

Read more

‘We are all looksmaxxers’

Renée Graham at The Boston Globe

“Famous or not, we are all, in our own ways, looksmaxxers,” says Renée Graham. The term “originated in the misogynistic bowels of social media, where young men believe that achieving their idea of physical perfection will attract more women.” But “even those who would never consider whacking their jawline or cheekbones with a metal tool still take what measures they deem necessary to look their best” such as “veneers for their teeth, hair transplants and weaves and increasingly available weight loss drugs.”

Read more

‘What the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. means for Atlanta’

Jennifer Porst and Kate Fortmueller at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Paramount’s “proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery threatens to reverse Atlanta’s fortunes and prominent position in the media and cultural industry,” say Jennifer Porst and Kate Fortmueller. Beyond the “loss of corporate media jobs and the radical alteration of the physical spaces in Georgia,” consolidation “threatens the vibrant production culture and health of soundstages” that Atlanta “has been developing over the past 20 years.” It’s “time to pay more attention to monopolies, protect workers and challenge anti-consumer practices.”

Read more

“For years, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin rocket company operated in secrecy, overshadowed by the success of Elon Musk’s SpaceX,” said Karen Weise in The New York Times. Founded in 2000, the venture didn’t put a craft into orbit until January 2025. Over the past 18 months, Blue Origin finally seemed to be gaining momentum, getting closer to reliably launching a gigantic rocket, called New Glenn, that could lift greater payloads and potentially challenge SpaceX’s domination of the sector. But late last month, New Glenn exploded in a fireball during a test, badly damaging its sole launchpad in Florida. “At least one massive steel tower appeared to be essentially gone,” and the hydraulics and fuel systems beneath the $1 billion pad might be irrecoverable. Amazon has about 3,000 satellites it needs to launch to begin commercial operations of its Leo satellite internet service, a potential competitor to SpaceX’s Starlink. The explosion could set Blue Origin, Amazon, and other customers back a year.

One of those customers is NASA, said James B. Meigs in The Wall Street Journal. The agency is “working furiously to get its Artemis program on track to land astronauts on the moon by 2030,” and both Blue Origin and SpaceX have been contracted to develop vehicles that can carry “astronauts from NASA’s Orion capsule down to the lunar surface and back.” Blue Origin is also building a smaller “workhorse” lander called Blue Moon for ferrying humans and cargo. “But right now, the only rocket configured to carry the Blue Moon is Blue Origin’s New Glenn.” So until New Glenn is operational again, “all those plans are on hold.”

The explosion “sets the stage for Elon Musk’s dominance of space,” said Faiz Siddiqui and Carolyn Y. Johnson in The Washington Post. It leaves the U.S. government and other customers “more reliant on SpaceX’s services.” The timing could not be better for Musk and SpaceX, which last week made the largest initial public offering in history. Musk, for his part, shared a motivational message to Bezos and his team on X. “Ad astra per aspera,” he wrote—“through hardships to the stars.”

Musk would know, said Ryan Whitley in National Review. As recently as 2008, “it was not clear SpaceX would even survive as a company given its early failures.” But it persevered, because the company’s strategy “was to learn faster than anybody else in the industry”—by learning from its mistakes. Unlike NASA, which became overzealous in its pursuit of perfection under the motto “failure is not an option,” Musk brought a Silicon Valley ethos to the space industry, where “failure was a necessary feature, not a bug.” Blue Origin is at a similar crossroads. It needs to embrace this moment as a learning opportunity and get back up—quickly.

Apple introduced the iPhone to the world in 2007. That was the same year that birth rates around the world began to decline. And the two developments may be related.

“If your sex life is dead, you can blame Steve Jobs,” Brandon Vigliarolo said at The Register. Two new studies suggest smartphones are responsible for the baby bust. One study found the iPhone “caused as much as half of the fertility decline” from 2007 to 2011, said The New York Times. A second study of 128 countries found that teen pregnancies declined “once smartphones became a mass phenomenon.” It may be that people “began to socialize more on their phones and less in person,” or it could be that the technology “made pornography more accessible.”

Experts suggested caution is needed. Smartphones are just one “example of the kinds of social influences” that may have reduced fertility, said Wellesley College’s Phillip B. Levine to the Times.

‘Awkward, antisocial puppies’

Phones have “turned us into awkward, antisocial puppies who can’t handle eye contact,” said Lauren Veldhuizen at the National Review. The rise of smartphone technology has thus created a world in which “fewer people date and fewer babies are born.” Some might see the decline of teen pregnancies, in particular, as a positive development. But that would be true only if the decline were the result of an “increasing respect for the purpose of sex within the confines of marriage” instead of our increasing “inability to speak to one another.”

The media has glommed onto the new studies because of a collective mood of “total paranoia and doom about smartphones,” said Elizabeth Nolan Brown at Reason. The biggest plunges in the 2007-2011 study were among 15- to 24-year-old females, suggesting more girls and women are “avoiding unintended pregnancy at young ages.” The study’s time frame might also simply reflect the impact of the Great Recession. The research should be greeted “with some skepticism.”

Smartphones “short-circuit the deep-seated human need to have your kids keep you company,” said Noah Smith at Noahpinion. We are choosing to “forsake each other’s company to stare eternally into a black mirror.”

‘No easy fix’

Maybe smartphones first tarnished dating, but AI “might finish the job,” said Eric Levitz at Vox. Streaming and social media have helped us isolate from each other, yet online platforms could not discuss “your career anxieties, favorite Civil War battle or debilitating fear of iguanas.” Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini and other artificial intelligence chatbots can. “Humanity may be scrolling its way out of existence.”

There is “no easy fix here,” said Axios. Politicians have proposed “baby bonuses, tax credits or better child care and parental leave policies” to solve the fertility crisis, all to no avail. “Perhaps the solution is that everyone toss their phones into the sea.”

What happened

Fox Corp. said Monday it was buying streaming and smart-TV company Roku for $22 billion, its first major acquisition since chief executive Lachlan Murdoch cemented control of his family’s media empire last year. The deal will give Fox, with its news and live sports content, a foothold in the more than 100 million households that use Roku’s platform.

Who said what

The cash-and-stock deal “would make the Murdoch media empire a formidable contender in the streaming wars,” positioning Fox to “reach customers who are abandoning traditional TV,” The New York Times said. Specifically, it would transform the company into a “major player in free, ad-supported streaming,” The Washington Post said, combining Fox-owned Tubi with Roku’s own “free-to-stream, ad-supported offering.”

Fox’s “bigger play here is advertising revenue, something all the major streamers are now jockeying for,” Forrester research director Mike Proulx said in a statement. “If this deal closes, Fox will control more of what viewers watch, how they discover it and how it gets monetized.”

What next?

Fox and Roku said their merger, expected to close in the first half of 2027, would create the “third-largest player in U.S. television by share of viewing.”

Another major data centre has been given the green light in the UK, further cementing the country’s status as Europe’s AI front-runner. The government has approved a data centre on a huge green-belt site in Slough, Berkshire, despite claims it could derail the project to build Heathrow’s third runway.

The company had appealed after the council refused to rule on the project, which it said would sit in “one of the most fragile and vulnerable parts of the green belt around London”. Since coming to power, Labour has “repeatedly bypassed local authorities to support data centre developments”, said The Telegraph. Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, said that there was a “continuing and unprecedented demand” for such projects.

How many data centres are there in the UK?

The UK is at the forefront of Europe’s data centre roll-out; it hosts 523 out of the continent’s 2,269 data centres as of last year, said Euronews. It is “striking” that China (home to 449 centres), “despite its strength as a technology and innovation power”, ranks behind the UK, as well as Germany (529 centres).

However, all three are dwarfed by the US, which last year boasted 5,427 data centres. The only other countries with more than 300 centres are Canada, France and Australia.

What’s the latest?

A multibillion-pound AI data centre in Wales was jeopardised by “ministerial dithering”, said The Telegraph. British data centre company Era4 said it had secured permission and financing for the project at the former Liberty Steel works in Newport, but that the “project had faced months of delays” because Kanishka Narayan, the AI minister, “failed to push through permission for it to access power from a nearby battery plant”.

Era4 said the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology had given “no indication of when a decision would be made or that the project would be approved”. Tom Humphreys, Era4’s chief executive, said the company was looking at sites in Europe as an alternative.

Other tech companies have also “complained of a struggle to build AI infrastructure in Britain”, said the paper. OpenAI recently announced it was pausing work on a data centre in the north of England due to high energy costs.

What’s planned for the future?

The number of data centres in the UK is set to increase by almost a fifth over the next five years, said the BBC last year, when there were already an estimated 477. Work on the biggest, a £10 billion data centre near Newcastle for US wealth management firm Blackstone Group, is due to begin in 2031. It will involve “10 giant buildings” covering more than half a million square metres – “the size of several large shopping centres”.

The majority will be built in London and neighbouring counties, despite “concerns about the huge amount of energy and water” they’ll consume, as well as the “potential knock-on effect” on domestic energy bills.

How much environmental impact do they have?

Officials recently admitted that Britain’s data centre boom could “draw 40% more electricity than thought a few months ago”, said The Times. More than 100 data centres are seeking grid connections for 50 gigawatts of electricity capacity – “more than the whole of Britain’s peak demand on a typical day”. MPs are calling for a “national conversation on the environmental impacts”.

“The previous projections were already unfathomable,” said Oliver Hayes, head of policy and campaigns at environmental charity Global Action Plan. Adding 40% on top is absurd.”

There are also concerns about the burning of fossil fuels to meet power demand, potentially jeopardising climate goals. There has been a “marked shift over the past year in willingness of UK developers – and authorities – to consider using fossil fuels to power the UK’s AI ambitions”, said The Guardian. More than 100 new UK data centres plan to burn gas, said “some potentially doing so permanently”.

Under-16s in the UK will be banned from social media under radical new plans set out by the prime minister today.

In a televised speech in Downing Street, Keir Starmer said he was “calling time on a system that’s failing our kids”. And while this was not a “cost-free decision”, governing “is always about choices, and it’s clear to me that a full ban is the right choice”.

Polling by YouGov suggests broad public support for the decision, with 77% of parents backing a ban. But parents were also split on whether a ban would work, with 45% of those surveyed saying it would be effective and 46% disagreeing.

How will it work?

The UK ban will cover the most popular social media platforms, including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), but not encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

The government says it will “go further than any other country”, with its policy also including blocks on live-streaming and stranger communication for under-16s. Gaming sites will be impacted and the government is also looking at overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for 16- to 18-year-olds. A minimum age of 18 will be enforced on “romantic companion” AI chatbots, designed to simulate sexual relationships or roleplay with users.

As ever the devil will be in the detail. The government has said new restrictions will be enforced through “highly effective age assurance” systems, including facial age estimation using digital cameras. The media regulator Ofcom “will conduct a rapid study on what is effective age assurance for verifying whether someone is over 16”, said the government’s official announcement.

The PM said he hopes to pass the necessary legislation by Christmas, with the ban coming into effect in spring 2027.

Will it work?

The government has been accused of rushing out plans for a social media ban “without considering the knock-on effects it would have on surveillance, privacy and young people’s wellbeing”, said OpenDemocracy.

Privacy and technology experts, as well as those working with children, have warned that the plans “could lead to a surveillance creep and data breaches”. They could also cut young people “off from social media’s potential benefits, such as giving LGBTQIA+ youth a chance to access communities”.

Social media companies have argued the ban could push children into unregulated parts of the internet and on to less safe sites and platforms. But Mark Dowey, whose son Murray died after being blackmailed on Instagram, told BBC Breakfast: “If that’s the best they’ve got then I think they’re in trouble. I think they’re basically acknowledging they don’t have a reasonable position here.”

Did it work in Australia?

The “key question” is whether it will actually work, said The Times. More than 70% of parents in Australia, which last year became the first country in the world to introduce a social media ban for under-16s, told the internet regulator their children were still on these platforms, a recent survey found. But supporters argue that the “problems there are about weak enforcement, not the model itself”.

Despite the decidedly mixed results of Australia’s prohibition experiment “the politics are broader: this is a culture-change moment, and a line in the sand from governments saying to tech companies: we make the rules”.

College graduates have been booing company bosses who mentioned artificial intelligence in graduation ceremonies as “AI anxiety” starts “boiling over into public backlash”, said Business Insider.

The trend is “highlighting a gulf” between older generations who feel the technology “offers new opportunities” and Gen Z, who are “growing increasingly anxious” about what it “means for their future”.

Backlash and resistance

A Gallup survey in April found excitement about AI among Gen Z has fallen from 36% last year to just 22%, while their anger towards the technology has risen by nine points, to 31%. Another survey, carried out by Numerator, found that among Gen Z people who don’t use AI, 57% are not open to adopting it, compared to just 32% of boomers.

“Read that again,” said Fortune – “older Americans are more open to AI than young ones”. It seems that a “surprising segment of the generation that was supposed to lead AI adoption” is actually “leading the resistance to it”. For them, AI was “foisted upon them” by their “parents, big tech CEOs” and Donald Trump.

“Every technology young people have ever loved”, like video games, social media and the internet itself, came to them as “play or transgression”, but AI “arrived as a mandate” from schools and employers. Also, Gen Z prizes “authenticity above almost everything” and AI “attacks” that.

Young people “were sold on the promise that a college education secured a good future”, but now employers are “gutting entry-level positions” in favour of AI, said Denison University student Jack Jackoboice in The Wall Street Journal.

A global survey found that 43% of CEOs plan to reduce junior roles, so young people are “actively being written out of a future” they have “no control over”.

A backlash is taking shape. Some Gen Z workers are “actively sabotaging their company’s AI initiatives” by feeding sensitive company data into public AI tools and by “intentionally producing low-quality, AI-assisted junk work” to make the technology “look unreliable”, said Vice.

Existential melodrama

But Gallup found that over half of 14- to 29-year-olds say they use AI daily or weekly, and some Gen Z-ers do see an upside in AI.

The “danger” is that “economic anxiety” can “curdle into existential melodrama”, said Ethan Tran, a student at Davidson College, in The Wall Street Journal. “Fear underrates human ingenuity”, so young people shouldn’t “hide from replacement” but “look for opportunities that arise from the transformation”.

The CEO of Big Machine Records, Scott Borchetta, also gave short shrift to AI anxiety, when graduates at Middle Tennessee State University booed him for saying that AI is rewriting the music industry. He told the hecklers: “You can hear me now, or you can pay me later.”

What happened

Apple on Monday unveiled an AI version of its Siri digital assistant at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference. The new Siri AI is the company’s response to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude and Google’s Gemini. OpenAI recently filed documents to prepare for a massive IPO, joining Anthropic and Elon Musk’s SpaceX-xAI.

Who said what

Apple is “betting the upgraded assistant can help close the gap” in the “crucial AI race,” but it has “taken a different approach from rivals,” Reuters said. Instead of pushing AI agents, the company “emphasizes practical features integrated into everyday tasks” and stressed that “personal data would remain private.” Analysts will be looking to see whether Apple’s “history of turning nascent technologies into popular products will apply to AI,” said CNN.

Some AI companies “appear to be racing forward, seemingly pursuing AI for the sake of AI, without clear regard for the ​people — all of us — that it’s ultimately meant to serve,” said Apple software chief Craig Federighi.

What next?

Apple is releasing its new “Golden Gate” software update — which includes Siri AI, more robust parental controls and other changes — immediately to developers, with a “public beta next month and a full launch to customers in the fall,” The Wall Street Journal said.

Pope Leo XIV is deeply worried about what artificial intelligence might do to all of us, said Francis X. Rocca in The Atlantic. The 42,300-word encyclical issued by the American-born pontiff recently—his first since being elevated to the papacy last year—was almost entirely devoted to AI, and he outlines “the choice humanity faces in stark terms.” With the help of governments and institutions, he says, the technology could become “an instrument of growth, justice, and fraternity.” But right now, it is fueling unemployment, destroying the environment, and reducing workers to “cogs in a machine.” We are unwisely entrusting AI with “lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions.” And the technology’s ready-made answers, he warns, can “weaken personal creativity and judgment,” threatening the “desire to form genuine human connections.” The Vatican “tends to ‘think in centuries,’” as one aphorism puts it, but on this issue Leo has moved “with remarkable speed.” It’s a clear sign of what he thinks humanity is up against.

Leo“should be applauded,” said The Guardian in an editorial. The “reckless hubris, profit seeking, and lack of accountability of figures such as Elon Musk represent a threat to the common good,” and regulation is needed to ensure their ambitious plans are deployed “for the good of all.” While Leo’s thoughts are—of course—informed by theology, his “humanity-first message” is one that even the secular world can support. AI is a “spiritual and civilizational test that forces us to face what it means to be human,” said Russell Moore in Christianity Today. Leo’s concern is not that machines will outpace humans, but that “human beings will become more like machines,” prioritizing “efficiency, control, optimization, and power above human dignity.”

The problem with Leo’s encyclical is that it doesn’t go nearly far enough, said Matthew Walther in The New York Times. Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”) begins with a parable about the Tower of Babel, “perhaps the greatest biblical symbol of technological hubris.” But it misses the story’s key point, which is not that the tower should have been built more ethically with greater “feedback from a more disparate assemblage of stakeholders.” The moral is instead: “Don’t build it!” And that’s the message Leo needed to deliver on AI, which is “unambiguously evil.”

We get it, said Barton Swaim in The Wall Street Journal: The pope’s a doomer. Clearly, he has “genuine concern for the ill uses to which AI may be put.” But “nobody yet understands the moral import of AI,” and calls for governments to “regulate AI” are incoherent and dangerous. Leo is simply echoing what the “left-liberal orthodoxy” is saying. But what’s the point “of a grand moral pronouncement” by a pope or any religious figure if it “doesn’t offend or seriously challenge honored cultural arbiters”?

Artificial intelligence systems can now convince you they are human. Two large language models have passed the Turing test, which determines if a machine can “show the same intelligence as a human being,” said The Independent. This significant development in AI is troubling, as anthropomorphizing LLMs can lead to deception and raise questions about what’s real and what isn’t.

Man or machine

In the test, a person “engages in text-based conversations with both a human and a machine without knowing which is which," said Stanford University. If the individual cannot tell them apart, the machine is considered to have passed the test. Researchers tested four AI systems and found that newer LLMs can “effectively imitate people in short interactions,” said a study published in the journal PNAS.

“Given the right prompts, advanced LLMs can exhibit the same tone, directness, humor and fallibility as humans,” study author Cameron Jones said in a release. “While we know LLMs can easily produce knowledge on nearly every topic, this test showed that it can also convincingly display social behavioral traits, which has major implications for how we think of AI.” The four tested AI models were GPT-4.5 and Llama-3.1-405B, which were state-of-the-art models, as well as the older baseline models GPT-4o and ELIZA, a simple chatbot from the 1960s.

Of the models, “GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time, meaning interrogators selected it as ‘human’ significantly more often than they selected the real human participant,” said the release. Llama-3.1-405B, “given the same prompt, was judged human 56% of the time,” making it “statistically indistinguishable from the humans it was compared against.” The baseline systems performed significantly worse, with ELIZA being mistaken for human only 23% of the time and GPT-4o being mistaken 21% of the time.

No man’s land

AI models passing for humans is a concerning development. The Turing test is a “game about lying for the models,” Jones said in the release, and “one of the implications is that models seem to be really good at that.” A big risk of the existence of AI models with this ability is the rise of “counterfeit people.” Thanks to the ease of deception, we “need to be more alert,” and “people should be much less confident that they know they’re talking to a human rather than an LLM.” Still, AI is not yet at a level where it can be deceptive on its own.

While the bots did pass the Turing test, they also required specific instructions to do so. Each of the systems was “instructed to adopt a persona, or a specific character and communication style,” said The Independent. These prompts “worked partly by leading the systems to make mistakes in the same way a human would.” When the models were not prompted, they were much less likely to be mistaken for humans, and GPT-4.5 fell to a 36% win rate and Llama-3.1-405B to a 38% win rate. The models “have the ability to appear humanlike,” study co-author Ben Bergen said in the release, “but maybe not as much the ability to figure out what it would take to appear humanlike.”

President Donald Trump’s executive order that voluntarily allows artificial intelligence companies to receive more government oversight marks a shift in the White House’s attitude about AI. It seems Trump, Republicans and even some Democrats are changing their tune.

What did the commentators say?

The order signed by Trump is “relatively toothless” because most major AI companies “already had agreements in place that allowed the government to preemptively test their models for safety risks,” said The Atlantic. But it is also “meaningful in that the president is doing something — anything — about AI” given that when Trump retook office, he largely “signaled to tech companies that he would stay out of the way.”

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett previously said the administration was considering federal guidelines that would “require AI models to go through an evaluation process similar to that used by the Food and Drug Administration,” said The Hill. This idea seemed to fizzle out as AI advocates became “concerned that an evaluation process from the White House could strangle development.”

The order that was signed “nonetheless represents a sea change in Washington’s willingness to tighten oversight of the technology,” said Politico. For the “first time it’s on a piece of paper, a structure and a process,” former Trump adviser Steve Bannon told the outlet. Some argue that Democratic politicians were already doing the same thing. “This executive order is implementing a voluntary regime to do pre-deployment evaluations of models for security risks,” Saif Khan, a tech adviser under former President Joe Biden, told Politico. “That is the thing that the Biden administration was doing.”

What next?

It is unclear where the Trump administration may go next with AI. The “entire chaotic saga — a wishy-washy White House, confused statements from populist and tech-elite Trump whisperers — is only the latest in a long string of strange, often contradictory AI policy positions,” said The Atlantic. There is a chance Trump could change his mind again, as his policies on the matter have been “inconsistent, if not incoherent, almost since the day he retook office.”

While Trump says he is focused on AI security, his White House has also slashed major portions of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), the “government agency that aims to protect the nation against hackers,” said The Atlantic. The budget cuts mean CISA is “heading into the AI era with shrinking resources and a diminished role,” said Axios, which could pave the way for future vulnerabilities. Many fear the agency “no longer has the capacity to help utilities, banks and other critical infrastructure operators prepare for a coming wave of AI-fueled cyberattacks.”

Others believe that both sides of the aisle have it wrong. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to ban data centers and is currently “calling for the government to own 50% of AI companies” — and it “would be easier to dismiss his ideas if they weren’t partially built on bipartisan consensus,” said The Washington Post editorial board. But U.S. tech policy works, and the “U.S. is a wealthy country because it doesn’t engage in the kind of government ownership schemes that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are fond of.”

With many Americans opposing the construction of giant AI data centers in their neighborhoods, some tech companies are proposing an unconventional solution: attaching mini data centers directly to people’s houses. At least one major startup backed by Nvidia is looking into the prospect, though it will likely be controversial.

How would these mini data centers work?

People typically associate data centers with big buildings churning out massive quantities of AI datasets. But the home version would be a “unit about the size of an air conditioner, mounted in the side yard,” said Scientific American. It could perform “artificial intelligence tasks, drawing power from your home’s energy supply” and theoretically “earning you discounted electricity and internet in exchange.”

Most of the attention has been focused on Span, an electrical panel startup that recently began manufacturing these types of units in partnership with Nvidia. The company said its mini data centers would be “less of a financial burden on residents” and “have a potentially lower ecological footprint than warehouse data centers,” said Fortune. Span’s units are also quiet, thereby “mitigating the problem of noise pollution that has drawn the ire of residents of areas with nearby warehouse data centers.”

Industry experts hope the home models like those proposed by Span could help alleviate the financial and energy constraints created by large buildings; a typical AI data center “consumes as much electricity as 100,000 households,” according to the International Energy Agency. Instead of “building a single large data center that requires its own substation upgrade or on-site gas turbines,” the AI “spreads compute across thousands of homes that are already connected to the grid,” said Scientific American.

What has the reaction been?

Creating more energy-friendly data centers is a “cool idea on paper, but it’s almost completely unproven in real-world use,” said Fast Company. And even if the home data centers took off, the “main point of resistance” is the fact that these centers “will result in higher electric bills for everyone in the area,” even if they are at people’s homes. Whether it’s a “new central data center or a distributed data center,” the “risk of higher costs — perhaps because of transformers and other infrastructure running hotter and degrading more quickly — could arguably be the same.”

Politically, gathering power from existing homes “may be easier than talking a city council into issuing a permit for a data center,” said Fast Company. But all of this is moot if tech companies are unable to perform the “tangled math of coordinating thousands of tiny residential energy resources to fuel the energy beast that data centers are,” said The Arizona Republic. While “distributed power generation has been around for years,” it has never “been harnessed at the scale needed for feeding data centers.”

Officials with Span remain optimistic that the home-based products will work. “There is certainly opportunity, as Span can provide homeowners with access to innovative technology and potential income generation that can help offset monthly energy costs,” a spokesperson for the company told Inc. “On a larger scale, if the technology proves out, it might also keep local infrastructure from being overburdened, which could keep land open for other uses, such as building homes.”

“Right now, it’s like the AI industry has a gas pedal but it doesn't have a brake pedal,” Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark told the BBC.

Anthropic recently overtook OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, as the world’s most valuable AI start-up. But Clark has called for a global freeze in AI development, warning that humans risk losing control of the technology. He revealed that 80% of the code that Claude, the company’s chatbot, is operating on was written by Claude itself. And reaching 100% is only a couple of years away.

Clark and his research colleague, Marina Favaro, have suggested that work at Anthropic could undergo “a meaningful slowdown or pause” if other AI tech firms were prepared to do the same. “If it were possible to effectively slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time to deal with its immense implications, we think that would likely be a good thing,” they wrote in a blog post.

What did the commentators say?

Better regulation “would keep AI systems in their lane”, said David Krueger, a specialist in responsible AI, in The Guardian. We should insist companies have “clear and well-scoped purposes” for their AI tools, and “demand evidence that they are fit for purpose”. And they should report statistics and data so that we can see if their product is being used in ways that “deviate from its intended purpose”.

But the “safest, sanest” option is to “stop racing” to make AI smarter. The creation of Moltbook (a forum for AI agents that humans can only observe) is one of the “increasingly alarming warning signs” that “rogue AI agents” could be on their way. “We need to make sure” that rogue AI isn’t “capable of threatening humanity, by agreeing to enforceable, international limits on AI capabilities and AI development”.

There are some hopeful signs in the US. On Tuesday, Donald Trump signed a “much-awaited” executive order to establish a measure of vetting for AI companies, said Politico. It was “messy, muted and far less ambitious than Silicon Valley’s critics had hoped for” but it does mark a “sea change in Washington’s willingness to tighten” AI oversight. The new voluntary process of sharing new models with the US government, so that security risks can be identified and addressed before the technology is released, could “soon pave the way for mandatory vetting, federal pre-approval of advanced AI systems and other regulations”.

Some may think it “meaningful” that Trump is “doing something – anything – about AI”, said The Atlantic, but this executive order is “relatively toothless”. He wants to look like he’s being robust, to “score points” with the public, but, in fact “he is not saying or doing anything substantive at all”. The window for serious government regulation, anywhere in the world, is “rapidly closing”; “hopefully, it is not already gone”.

We’re missing the point, said John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times. “AI’s capacity to deliver genuine value has been vastly exaggerated.” In one US study, researchers tracking software developers before and after they adopted AI tools found an initial “explosive” increase in productivity (300% more files created or edited) but, after verification and review, just a 30% “uplift” in the number of releases. These are “powerful new tools” but it’s going to take some time before they can interact with current workflow “processes and structures” without friction or bottlenecks.

What next?

Trump’s executive order is a “good first move in creating a safer tech ecosystem”, said Jen Easterly, former director of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in The New York Times. But a voluntary framework, predicated on mutual cooperation between private companies and the US government, “cannot guarantee” effectiveness. And, let’s not forget, a “principle enshrined in an executive order is only as durable as the administration that issued it”.

For this step to be a positive one, in an American context at least, the legislative branch needs to follow suit. The responsibility of building an AI environment that is “innovative, trusted and resilient” ultimately lies with the US Congress.

“The era of the ‘10 blue links’ is over,” said Sarah Perez in TechCrunch. At its annual I/O conference two weeks ago, Google announced it is overhauling the search box in what the company described as “the biggest change to this entry point to the web in 25 years.” A new “intelligence search box” will respond to longer, more conversational queries and “drop users into AI-powered interactive experiences.” And soon, people will be able to dispatch “information agents” right from Google Search that can keep them abreast of changes for topics they’d otherwise have to search for, such as stock prices and clothing sales. “This shift means that ‘searching the web’ will increasingly be performed by AI agents rather than humans,” and links could soon “become an afterthought.”

Google was “all hype” for the unveiling of this tectonic development in front of an adoring crowd, said Tyler Lacoma in CNET. But for people in the real world, the news was “clear and disturbing.” The threat is existential “not just to developers, but to all online workers,” as well as small businesses who rely on search traffic to get customers. Google’s vision is that you no longer need to venture out onto the internet, said Katie Notopoulos in Business Insider. The internet will be “brought to you in a sanitized form by an intermediary.” That will totally ruin the experience. I love the internet and love searching around it for new things. These promised changes “give me an awful sinking feeling.”

But there are some genuinely great things about Google’s new AI-powered search bar, said Jason England in Tom’s Guide. It offers a “really nice, curated way to scythe your way through what is becoming an increasingly noisy internet.” You can easily plan a weekend, for instance, based on what Google “already knows about you,” letting it automatically “build a schedule that knows your tastes and availability.” I won’t miss the era of “10 blue links,” even if I worry about what happens to online sites once “a key referrer drops to zero.”

The problem is that Google seems to lack focus, said Dave Lee in Bloomberg. The company that was once criticized for “being too slow to ship AI products” has gone to “now not knowing when to slow down.” In addition to the new AI search tools, it announced new AI-powered Gmail features, updates to Google Pics (not to be confused with Google Photos) and Google Flow, and even a new pair of smart glasses. The slew of new technology is “dizzying” and could leave consumers overwhelmed and “more resistant as a result.” Google has the engineering expertise, capital, hardware, and customer base to win the AI race. But there is “such a thing as doing too much too quickly.”

‘AI chatbots have a Romance language problem’

Adam Aleksic at The Washington Post

People “use more Latin terms when we want to speak formally or authoritatively; we’ll use Germanic words to sound crass or casual,” and “AI chatbots have also inherited this proclivity,” says Adam Aleksic. AI researchers have “found consistent favoritism for words coming from Latin and French over those with Germanic etymologies.” People could therefore “be hoodwinked by prestige language, convinced that an AI model is saying something profound simply because it’s using French words like ‘profound.’”

Read more

‘Turkey’s democratic crisis is becoming a security crisis’

Ozgur Ozel at Newsweek

For “years, discussions about Turkey’s democratic decline were largely confined to the language of human rights, constitutional law and domestic politics,” and “international observers viewed the erosion of democratic institutions as a troubling but primarily internal matter,” says Ozgur Ozel. Now, “Turkey’s democratic crisis has evolved into something much larger.” It is “becoming a security crisis with implications far beyond our borders.” The “reason is simple: Turkey is too strategically important to become politically unstable.”

Read more

‘How did Spain’s unemployment rate converge with Finland’s?’

Sarah O’Connor at the Financial Times

A “decade ago, hardly anyone would have predicted that the unemployment rate in Spain — long plagued by chronically high joblessness — would converge with Finland’s,” says Sarah O’Connor. But “that is what has happened this year, with unemployment in both countries now roughly 10%.” Is “this a story of Spanish policymakers’ success or Finnish policymakers’ failure? Well, to some extent: both.” But it is “also a story about how much in economic policymaking depends on factors beyond governments’ control.”

Read more

‘“Close reading” is a solution for students looking to live a good life’

Dan Sinykin at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Close reading is a “practice that turns details into evidence for arguments, beautifully made, about what a text means and how it works,” says Dan Sinykin. It “demands we recognize misunderstandings and correct them, because we must be accountable not only to ourselves, but to the text.” Teaching of skills is “directed toward an ultimate goal of economic growth,” but by “speaking instead of virtues we subordinate economic growth to the good life and human flourishing.”

Read more

What happened

Florida on Monday sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, alleging that the company’s AI chatbot violates state consumer protection laws. “Altman and ChatGPT have chosen the AI race over the safety and security of our kids,“ Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) said at a news conference. “We’re going to make them pay for hurting our kids.”

Who said what

Uthmeier’s suit accuses OpenAI of a “litany of harms” driven by its “insatiable quest to win the AI arms race and amass large fortunes” regardless of known dangers, including abetting mass shooters, encouraging suicide and hooking minors on an unsafe tool. It’s the first state lawsuit against OpenAI and Altman, but the latest “broadside in a growing rebellion” against AI chatbots, The Wall Street Journal said.

Uthmeier has “emerged as a key antagonist” of AI since Florida’s GOP-led House “aligned with President Donald Trump” and blocked Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) “efforts to police” the technology, said Politico. Monday’s civil suit is separate from Ulthmeier’s ongoing criminal investigation into ChatGPT’s alleged role in planning a mass shooting at Florida State University.

What next?

Florida is seeking “more protections for children’s data and stronger parental controls” plus “financial penalties,” The Washington Post said. Uthmeier predicted other states will sue OpenAI as well.

Dating apps are “rooted in rejection and judgement” and that’s “not healthy”, Bumble founder Whitney Wolfe Herd told Fortune. She had an “epiphany” during a 14-month leave of absence that users are just “hurt people hurting people”, and has vowed to bring “more joy and satisfaction” to her app.

Bumble is now shifting to matching-making driven by AI – and it’s not the only dating app to see this as the solution to increasing dating-app fatigue. But newcomer Breeze is taking another route: switching the focus to in-person experiences by reducing opportunities to chat in app, and sending only a time-specific, limited number of matches.

‘Payment and consequences’

“Breeze is a welcome disruptor in the dating app landscape,” said Isabella Silvers in The Telegraph. Since it launched in Europe in 2020, after winning investment from the Dutch version of “Dragon’s Den”, it has clocked up more than two million downloads. Users join “matching pools” that bring together “like-minded daters”, based on everything from hobbies (“outdoor lovers”) to niche interests (“rat owners/lovers”). To date, the app has arranged more than 737,000 dates, “resulting in 10 babies – that it knows of”.

Users receive a “select number of profiles” at 7pm every day and the key to the app’s success seems to be “payment and consequences”. Once you accept a match, you have to fill out your availability and pay a £9.50 deposit to secure a drinks date (or £4.50 for a “walk and talk”), “before being allowed to make a decision on anyone else”. The chat function for matched users is only opened up four hours before the date – prompting last-minute date confirmations, rather than “meaningless messaging”.

Breeze is “evidently working”, especially in the Netherlands where it’s “the third most popular and fastest-growing” dating app, said Lydia Spencer-Elliott in The Independent. “But can it save Britain’s dismal dating scene?” It can certainly save us from “boring convos generated by ChatGPT”, or being stood up or ghosted or “strung out” for weeks with no follow-through. But “what it absolutely can’t save” us from “is ourselves”. It’s ultimately “knackering” to keep “riding the rejection rollercoaster of the dating-app landscape” – and, sometimes, “the best remedy is to give it all a rest”.

‘Charming chatbots’

There is “rampant” dating-app burnout, said Catherine Pearson in The New York Times. As Bumble embraces AI-powered algorithms to re-engage those who “crave an experience that feels less overwhelming and more purposeful”, it’s also removing its swipe feature. It’s hoping to “end superficial, snap judgements” by altering “the dating habits of millions of users who have grown used to vetting partners with the flick of a finger”.

But the AI pivot comes with risk. Integrating AI features “sloppily” could “alienate” dating-app customers, said Tatum Hunter in The Guardian. Some users are already reporting “being plagued by AI paranoia, unsure whether the people they are messaging are real or charming chatbots”. The messaging from the industry is clear: “if we let AI take the wheel, this will all get less depressing”. But can a “smooth, mindless path toward connection” really make dating more joyful?

Evolutionary psychology reminds us that “only a signal that is difficult to fake can carry reliable information about the sender”, said Andrew King on Quillette. A rightward swipe behind a screen “communicates almost nothing about the sincerity of the person making it”. But making an approach in person at a bar or an event carries the potential for “public rejection”, and that cost is a signal of sincerity. These signals “matter” and “cannot be easily digitised”: “the discomfort is the point”.

Eagerness about artificial intelligence has led to a competitive push at tech companies to use as much AI as possible in a trend called tokenmaxxing. Employers are happily spending thousands to keep up with output, but whether the practice is sustainable is up for debate.

What is it?

At the core of the AI workplace trend are tokens. They represent small bits of text that AI models process during a prompt, tracking AI usage and calculating costs. AI companies “typically charge a monthly subscription for a fixed allotment of tokens,” with additional usage billed separately or available in higher-tier plans, Built In said.

Tokenmaxxing is about “encouraging engineers to consume as many AI tokens as possible,” said Forbes. Companies argue that “token consumption is a key indicator for measuring employee and developer productivity.” There is a growing sentiment that “teams that aren’t burning enough tokens simply aren’t automating enough and get left behind.”

Employees rack up tokens by deploying multiple agentic AI models on separate projects simultaneously or by running longer prompts. The trend came to public attention after The Information uncovered that a Meta employee had created an internal leaderboard ranking employees by token usage. Employees were incentivized to use more tokens to outperform coworkers and earn rewards such as digital badges and exclusive titles like “Cache Wizard.” The highest-ranked individual user averaged 281 billion tokens, “which could cost in the hundreds or thousands of dollars,” said The Information. The leaderboard has since been taken down.

Leaderboards are just the icing on the AI-workplace cake. Token budgets are “becoming another form of employee compensation, alongside stock options and yearly bonuses,” said Built In. While some workers go through millions of tokens a week, employers are “happily footing the bill,” believing that “more AI use means more productivity and, of course, more money for the business in the long run.”

Is it worth it?

The popularity of tokenmaxxing “reflects a desire to incentivize AI usage” and presents the assumption that “tokens are the base unit for AI usage,” meaning “greater consumption indicates higher value of AI,” Jim Rowan, the U.S. head of AI at Deloitte Consulting LLP, said to Forbes. While well-intentioned, there are “risks of turning tokens into a ‘vanity metric.’”

Still, some proponents of the competitive practice push back against such rhetoric. “We all should be tokenmaxxing,” Sonya Huang, a partner at Sequoia Capital, said to The Wall Street Journal. Artificial intelligence is an “insane new piece of technology that is fundamentally going to rewrite how we work.” What matters most for your company is: “Has my employee become insanely AI-pilled?” That requires “getting them on this tokenmaxxing mindset.”

The tokenmaxxing trend is a “crazy, rushed, temporary phase,” Michael Burry, the investor behind “The Big Short,” said in his Substack Short Thoughts. It is not “merely heavy AI use,” and it is “certainly not sustainable AI use.” It is “quota-driven, leaderboard-driven, management-mandated overconsumption.”

It’s true that the “cost of training AI models is falling, making AI tokens more affordable,” but people have started using “more tokens in their day-to-day tasks,” said The Week sister site Tom’s Hardware. Though AI is “indeed a useful tool,” some companies are “using it to replace people in a bid to cut labor costs.” If the number of tokens needed to accomplish tasks “outpaces the speed at which these tokens become cheaper, then that move might just backfire.”

What happened

A $9.7 billion Pentagon contract with Dell Technologies announced this week sent the company’s stock soaring, likely boosting President Donald Trump’s more than $1 million investment in the company, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported Thursday. “Government ethics watchdogs are sounding the alarm” not only because Trump “potentially stands to gain financially” from the Dell deal, the Post said, but also because he “has repeatedly praised the company at public events” since acquiring the shares earlier this year.

Who said what

The Dell investments were among more than 3,600 trades executed in Trump’s investment portfolio from January through March, according to a mandatory filing released this month. The Trump family has “argued that the president does not personally control the trading,” but the president’s financial accounts “are not in a traditional ‘blind trust,’” the Times said. And his Dell purchase “draws new attention to the inherent problems” with the family’s “widespread investments” in military drones, cryptocurrency, mining and prediction markets while Trump “oversees policy and government purchase decisions for those same sectors.”

What next?

Presidents are exempt from an ethics law that prohibits official self-enrichment. Congress should “revisit the arrangement whereby we rely on the president’s own sense of integrity rather than law to avoid conflicts of interest,” Greg Williams from the Project on Government Oversight told the Post.