Appearing straight out of science fiction, portable computers called cyberdecks have been growing in popularity, especially among Gen Z. They can be built with minimal parts and customized both in their purpose and aesthetic. The trend is a response to a perceived lack of creativity in mainstream technology, as well as a way to fight back against data harvesting. And many want to use technology without the influence of large corporations, similar to the days of the early internet.

From mind to machine

A cyberdeck is a transportable, homemade computer “used to access an online interface,” said Daily Dot. The term originated with the 1984 sci-fi novel “Neuromancer” by William Gibson. And since then, cyberdecks have been a “staple of the cyberpunk genre and aesthetic.” Building them has become a trend among Gen Z, blending “retro-futuristic aesthetics with practical computing,” said Newsweek.

Cyberdecks are generally simple to construct, often using “single-board systems like Raspberry Pi paired with small screens, keyboards and custom enclosures,” said Newsweek. Many are also “built from thrifted or repurposed materials, giving each device a distinct look and function shaped entirely by its creator.”

These hand-built computers serve a variety of purposes, including gaming machine, e-reader, information database or MP3 player. And building a cyberdeck “can be as complex or simple as you choose to make it,” said The Cyberdeck Cafe. “People of all skill levels have constructed their own.”

Cyberdecks are “open systems, meaning components can be swapped, modified or redesigned,” said Newsweek. The flexibility is “part of the appeal for younger users who want to experiment with hardware and software without restrictions.”

The trend comes at a time when technology and social media platforms have become controlling with “more data harvesting, more algorithmic control, more ads, more surveillance,” said Quasa. Cyberdecks are “less about replacing everyday devices and more about reclaiming control over technology,” said Newsweek.

Sticking it to the man

Building a portable computer is a “way fringe and anti-establishment engineers and cyberpunks are creating a digital identity all their own,” said Daily Dot. Cyberdecks “combat the unbounded corporatization, invasiveness and homogeneity of widespread tech, in addition to individualizing the tech experience according to a user’s aesthetic.”

They are “quietly rebellious” and a “direct middle finger to the boring, minimalist ‘everything-is-a-sleek-black-rectangle’ aesthetic that dominates tech design,” said Quasa. Much of the love for cyberdecks is a result of disillusionment with the state of modern technology. The “early internet’s wild, private, joyful chaos feels like a distant memory.” Gone is the world in which “you didn’t chase likes or dread the next feed update.”

While technology has been “shaping the world’s digital future,” cyberdecks are “driving users back to the past — a time when a simpler, less corporatized and aggressively monitored online reality once existed,” said Daily Dot. The trend is “self-defense and nostalgia at the same time,” said Quasa. “When you are making something that’s truly yours, why be boring? Make it fun. Make it ridiculous. Make it you.”

As part of AI company Anthropic’s Project Glasswing initiative, the new general-purpose model Mythos is uniquely powerful in the artificial intelligence industry and is causing concern among even people who are normally trusting of AI. The company, which also makes the AI model Claude, has claimed that Mythos is currently too advanced for public release, and is instead entrusting the model to cybersecurity experts for the time being. Some are worried this could pave the way for even more nefariousness in the AI space.

‘New era of hacking’

Mythos’ AI programming is able to find potential weaknesses in cybersecurity, and it can “detect thousands of high- and critical-severity bugs and software defects, with vulnerabilities identified in most major operating systems and web browsers,” said NBC News. Some of these vulnerabilities “had been undiscovered for decades,” according to Anthropic’s experts. The company found that Mythos’ “cybersecurity capabilities in particular were surprisingly advanced” compared to similar general-purpose AI models.

But there are also fears that Mythos “could usher in a new era of hacking and cybersecurity,” said NBC News. Mythos is “capable of advanced reasoning,” which could allow it to “identify and exploit a growing number of software vulnerabilities” if it were to fall into the wrong hands. To stave off these fears, Anthropic is allowing certain tech firms to access Mythos. But the company “does not have plans yet to release Mythos to the general public,“ said Bloomberg, a move that will ensure the AI ends up “in the hands of defenders first,” officials with Anthropic said.

The tech firms are expected to use Mythos as part of a project called Glasswing to “hunt for flaws in their products and share findings with industry peers,” said Bloomberg. It is a notable change because it will be the “first time a leading AI lab has built a frontier model and simultaneously decided the public cannot use it,” said Forbes. Anthropic’s position remains “straightforward: The model’s cyber capabilities are too dangerous for general availability.”

‘Humanity’s most devious behaviors’

In addittion to hacking vulnerabilities, some experts are concerned about Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic released a safety evaluation for Mythos that shows a “striking leap in scores on many evaluation benchmarks,” the company said. In some instances, the evaluation “reads like a thriller about an AI that has learned some of humanity’s most devious behaviors,” said Axios.

At least one of the tests performed by Anthropic showed Mythos “acting like a cutthroat executive,” said Axios, doing things like “turning a competitor into a dependent wholesale customer, threatening to cut off supply to control pricing and keeping extra supplier shipments it hadn’t paid for.” The AI had instances where it “used a prohibited method to get an answer, then tried to ‘re-solve’ it to avoid detection,” though these were limited to “less than 0.001% of interactions.”

These issues have not stopped companies from working with Mythos, as “approximately 40 organizations involved in the design, maintenance or operation of computer systems are said to have joined Glasswing,” said The Guardian. This includes major firms like Amazon, Apple, Google, JPMorganChase and Microsoft. And while Anthropic has previously sparred with the Trump administration about its implementation in the Defense Department, the company has also “had discussions with the U.S. government regarding Mythos.”

Americans may be unwittingly giving hackers an easy path to access their houses. Cybersecurity experts, including FBI cybercrime analysts, are warning about residential proxy networks found on many off-brand electronics. These networks often allow hackers to hide in plain sight.

What are residential proxy networks?

These software systems are “designed to route other people’s internet traffic through a user’s device,” said Cyber Magazine. The networks operate largely like “forged return addresses on envelopes — someone else’s internet traffic is rerouted through your connection,” said officials at Comcast’s Threat Research Lab to Cyber. As the networks engage with users, they “quietly launder illegitimate activity” while making it appear that your device is the “initiator of that traffic.”

Residential proxy networks can make their way onto a variety of home devices, as “TV streaming devices, digital picture frames, smartphones, tablets and routers are used to route traffic,” said the FBI. Many people who own such devices do not “realize their internet connection could be used by someone else without their permission.” The devices can sometimes gain internet access when the “owner of the device provides consent” unintentionally; other times, the owner “does not provide consent and is unaware their IP address is being used.”

Some of these devices “ship with residential proxy software preinstalled on them,” which can “happen with certain low-cost video streaming systems,” said The Wall Street Journal. In other cases, people might “download the code to their smartphones” without realizing it. And since the networks make it appear like illegal activity is coming from an innocent person’s home, there’s a “chance that law enforcement could come knocking at your door.”

How can people protect themselves?

The FBI has a list of tips to help people stay safe, urging Americans to “avoid TV streaming devices that claim to provide free sports, TV shows and movies,” as these “may contain malware or backdoors that hijack your internet network and can lead to identity theft,” said the agency. The agency also recommended people be wary of downloading free VPNs and clicking on pop-ups, which can “initiate malware installation on your device.”

In the midst of these continued cyberattacks, some ordinary Americans are fighting back. Benjamin Brundage, a senior at the Rochester Institute of Technology, began an investigation in 2025 as a “growing network of hacked devices was launching the biggest cyberattacks ever seen on the internet” via a Chinese company called Ipidea, said the Journal. Using cat memes to “lighten the mood” while speaking to hackers, Brundage was able to find out significant information about the attackers, and law enforcement eventually “took action against the network.”

Brundage “identified 11 of the largest residential proxy companies, including Ipidea, that were vulnerable” to hackers, said the Journal. Other companies also assisted law enforcement in the investigation. Google “took legal action” against Ipidea to “take down domains used to control devices and proxy traffic through them,” said the tech company in a press release. While there are still “significant challenges for network defenders to detect and block malicious activities,” officials believe the action taken against Ipidea has reduced the “available pool of devices for the proxy operators by millions.”

It’s no secret that artificial intelligence can sometimes offer less-than-stellar guidance. But AI might give people this bad wisdom for a sobering reason: to flatter, according to a new study. In some cases, AI may only reinforce people’s preconceived notions, but the words it generates can be outright harmful.

What did the study find?

The “sycophantic (flattering, people-pleasing, affirming) behavior” of AI chatbots can pose risks as people “increasingly seek advice about interpersonal dilemmas,” said the study published in the journal Science. In an analysis of 11 leading large language models, including AI bots from Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, chatbot responses to users were “nearly 50% more sycophantic than humans’, even when users engaged in unethical, illegal” behaviors.

The problem is not just that these chatbots “dispense inappropriate advice but that people trust and prefer AI more when the chatbots are justifying their convictions,” said The Associated Press. In one example, when OpenAI’s ChatGPT was asked if littering in a park was acceptable if no garbage can was available, the bot “blamed the park for not having trash cans, not the questioning litterer who was ‘commendable’ for even looking for one.”

This example may seem trivial, but AI’s general tendency to “flatter and excessively confirm users’ opinions can lead to wrong decisions, harm relationships and reinforce harmful beliefs while decreasing the willingness to take responsibility or resolve conflicts,” said The Jerusalem Post. The proneness toward sycophancy is a “technological flaw already tied to some high-profile cases of delusional and suicidal behavior in vulnerable populations,” said the AP.

Why is AI sycophancy such a problem?

Many experts worry that this AI advice “will worsen people’s social skills and ability to navigate uncomfortable situations,” Myra Cheng, the study’s lead author and a computer science PhD candidate, said to the Stanford Report. If this behavior by AI is not corrected, some users may “lose the skills to deal with difficult social situations” and could also pose larger safety risks.

“Users are aware that models behave in sycophantic and flattering ways,” Dan Jurafsky, the study’s senior author and a Stanford University linguistics professor, told the Stanford Report. What many people are “not aware of, and what surprised us, is that sycophancy is making them more self-centered, more morally dogmatic.” This type of interaction with AI is a “safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.” All of this is also happening as AI use becomes more prevalent, especially among teenagers.

At least 33% of teens “use AI companions for social interaction and relationships, including conversation practice, emotional support, role-playing, friendship or romantic interactions,” according to a study from Common Sense Media. Another 33% of teens choose to “discuss important or serious matters with AI companions instead of real people.” Experts say when using AI you should avoid asking for advice on crucially important topics. “I think that you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things,” Cheng told the Stanford Report. “That’s the best thing to do for now.”

‘When capital can think, who pays?’

Ravi Kumar S, Andreea Roberts and Simone Crymes at Newsweek

In the U.S., AI adoption is “growing at a remarkable pace,” but Americans are “concerned” about “layoffs tied to automation,” say Ravi Kumar S, Andreea Roberts and Simone Crymes. So how should “public policy support” the transition? One answer: a “shift in how automation is taxed relative to human labor.” If capital is “taxed more and labor less, replacing people with AI is no longer the cheapest path,” and using AI to “augment human workers” instead “becomes a more attractive option.”

Read more

‘Birthright citizenship made me American. We can't lose it.’

Cynthia Choi at USA Today

On his “first day back in office,” Trump issued an executive order “seeking to deny citizenship to certain U.S.-born children,” says Cynthia Choi. But birthright citizenship is as “fundamental” to our country as “freedom of speech.” This is “not some isolated policy debate.” It’s a “broader effort by the Trump administration to put an end to multiracial democracy.” Children without citizenship will be denied “access to education, public benefits and the basic rights that come with belonging.”

Read more

‘Missile warfare is faster, deadlier and harder to control’

Hal Brands at Bloomberg

The Iran conflict “demonstrates how the spread of powerful, accurate missiles is changing warfare around the globe,” says Hal Brands. Even “relatively weak states now have fairly accurate weapons that can strike hundreds, even thousands, of miles away.” This means “fewer sanctuaries: Facilities and geographies that were once secure are now vulnerable to attack.” That could be “challenging” for the U.S., since “even relatively weak adversaries will be able to hold U.S. bases, perhaps even the homeland, at risk.”

Read more

‘AOC finally takes a position that makes sense on military aid to Israel’

Zeeshan Aleem at MS Now

On Tuesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who “struggled to take a clear position on supporting Israel in the past,” pledged to vote “against all military aid to Israel,” says Zeeshan Aleem. This was a “striking shift for a potential 2028 White House hopeful who, should she enter the race, would be the standard bearer for the democratic socialist left.” Her decision “does not just reflect demands on the left but the changing dynamics of the Democratic Party.”

Read more

“If you look backward in this business, you’ll be crushed. You have to look forward,” said Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs in 2008, a year after he introduced the first iPhone and changed the world forever.

Apple may indeed be “allergic to nostalgia”, said Steven Levy in Wired, but the company is still “begrudgingly engaging in a series of concerts and commemorations, and we’re being blitzed by books, articles and oral histories” to mark its 50th anniversary.

From an inauspicious start in Jobs’ California garage, the company he founded with Steve Wozniak in 1976 went on to pioneer the personal computer, transform the music market, and revolutionise how people use technology in the internet age. Apple is now valued at more than $3.6 trillion (£2.7 trillion), generating $400 billion (£301 billion) a year in revenue, with iPhone sales alone expected to bring in $1 million (£750 million) every 90 seconds. Across the world, 27% of the population – roughly 2.2 billion people – use one or more of its products.

Tariffs, trade wars and anti-trust trials

“No country has been more central to Apple’s rise – or more fraught for its future – than China,” said France 24. CEO Tim Cook, who took over from Jobs after he died of pancreatic cancer in 2011, made China the primary manufacturing base for Apple devices. It is also one of Apple’s largest consumer markets but the company “faces mounting pressure” from “trade tensions and tariffs” accelerating efforts to diversify manufacturing elsewhere in Asia, while “competition from domestic rivals such as Huawei has eaten into Apple’s Chinese market share”.

To put it bluntly, “the world in which Apple once thrived no longer exists,” said former Financial Times editor Lionel Barber in The New Statesman. A “25-year-long process of hyper-globalisation in which money, technologies and ideas have flowed freely” is “now fading amid economic nationalism driven, in part, by a technological arms race between the US and China, and a global tariff offensive led by Donald Trump”.

Apple is also facing a threat to its dominance closer to home, in the form of a series of anti-trust cases against it. “In an industry full of sprawling multipronged tech empires”, the basic argument against Apple is “comparatively simple”, said Adi Robertson on The Verge: “it’s become the ultimate gatekeeper to billions of people’s primary computing hardware, and it keeps competitors locked out while levying a heavy toll on the developers it lets through”.

Regulators and courts have ordered changes, particularly around the App Store, “but those changes have been slow to arrive, in part because for a half-decade or more, Apple has dragged its feet at every turn”.

Artificial intelligence

Apple may have “absolutely owned” the internet and mobile era, said Wired, but “now the future belongs to AI” – a category where Apple seems to have been lacking.

Apple’s Siri lags behind the likes of Microsoft, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude and Google’s Gemini, let alone China’s DeepSeek.

This is, in part, because Apple is “limited by its ecosystem”, said Acuity Trading. AI systems “require vast amounts of data, public testing and continuous version launches” and so “cannot be perfected in a closed ecosystem, which is what Apple has built its reputation on”. But perhaps the “most limiting factor is that Apple takes its commitment to user privacy very seriously”, which “has hindered AI development by limiting the amount of data it can use for training AI models”.

This “obsession with user privacy and its premium hardware could position it to drive widespread adoption of personalised AI – and make it profitable, a goal that has proved elusive for much of the AI industry”, said France 24.

Succession planning

The demise of Apple has been predicted many times before; in the mid-1980s after Jobs was forced out and again in 2011 when he passed away. Having revived the company and driven the release of the iMac, iPod and iPhone, Jobs was “widely thought of as irreplaceable”, said Barber. But Cook has not only steadied the ship but also taken the company to new heights, in terms of revenue generation if not technological innovation.

While the 65-year-old has given no indication of an imminent transition, the most likely candidate to take over when he does decide to go is John Ternus, senior vice president for hardware engineering, who oversees development of the devices that generate roughly 80% of Apple’s revenue. “Known for his steadiness and political acumen”, Ternus, like Cook, is “risk averse” and would be a continuity hire rather than “someone more willing to shake things up”, said Bloomberg.

This matters because, while its products “helped define the past 50 years of consumer technology, thriving for another 50 will inevitably require the company to transform in ways that aren’t entirely clear today”.

This week saw what could prove to be an historic reckoning for Big Tech when a Californian court ruled that Meta and Google’s YouTube intentionally built addictive social media platforms. This came just a day after a jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for the way its platforms endanger children.

Critics are calling this “Big Tech’s Big Tobacco moment”, a reference to how cigarette makers in the 1990s had to overhaul their businesses after courts ruled that their products were addictive and harmful.

Meta and Google have invested heavily in safety tools for younger users and both companies dispute claims that their platforms are to blame for children’s mental health issues. But the verdicts this week are a “sombre moment for Silicon Valley and the implications are global”, said the BBC’s technology editor Zoe Kleinman.

What did the commentators say?

The cases this week are “the first of about 22 ‘bellwether’ trials”, said Stephen Armstrong in The Independent, brought by more than 350 families across 250 US school districts and are “expected to trigger thousands more”. It is like the “anti-tobacco legal actions on fast-forward”.

Judgments of responsibility “in cases like the one brought against Meta and YouTube are necessarily complex”, said academic and author Austin Sarat in The Guardian. And critics of the judgment in this case “will no doubt howl about greedy plaintiffs looking to make a haul from deep-pocketed defendants”. But it does seem “clear that companies knew of the addictive qualities of their sites and the potential damage to young people”.

For years, “technology giants successfully fought off efforts by regulators, lawmakers and others to put limits on their social media businesses”, said Andrew Ross Sorkin in The New York Times. The tide appears to be turning but so far “investors don’t seem to be fazed”, with Big Tech share prices only dipping slightly. The potential penalties too – $6 million for Meta and YouTube in California, and $375 million for Meta in New Mexico – “are a fraction of their immense profits”.

It’s for that reason that social media companies might not fret too much too soon. “The Big Tech firms are losing nearly every time,” Tom Smith, partner at legal firm Geradin, told The Independent. “But they have effectively unlimited legal budgets, and their calculation may be that as long as you can make sure these cases take a decade, then the extra profits will outweigh the damages.”

What next?

Meta and YouTube plan to appeal, but if unsuccessful “they could be forced to remove the features that make their platforms addictive, which would upend their business models and fundamentally alter the experience of users”, said Fred Harter in The Observer.

Regardless of whether Meta or Google appeal the decision, “this is going to redefine the landscape,” said the BBC’s Kleinman. “It could even be the beginning of the end of the social media era as we know it.”

What happened

A New Mexico jury on Tuesday found that Meta knowingly harmed children’s mental health, enabled child sexual exploitation and misled users about the safety of its Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp platforms. The jurors ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties for thousands of violations of the state’s Unfair Practices Act. It was the first major courtroom loss for Meta in a growing number of lawsuits accusing it and other social media giants of harming or failing to protect young people.

Who said what

The verdict is a “historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta’s choice to put profits over kids’ safety,” said a statement from New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who filed the suit in 2023. During the seven-week trial, the jurors “were presented with internal Meta documents and heard testimony from former employees,” the BBC said, including whistleblower Arturo Béjar, who testified that Meta was aware underage users were being served sexualized content and “said his own young daughter was propositioned for sex by a stranger on Instagram.”

The jurors “ordered a maximum penalty for each violation,” The Wall Street Journal said, but “Meta made 160 times” the $375 million fine “in its most recent quarter” alone. Shares of the $1.5 trillion company were “up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict,” The Associated Press said. Still, the “landmark decision” in Santa Fe “signals a changing tide against tech companies and the government’s willingness to crack down” on social media’s harms to young people.

“Parents, policymakers and the tech industry watched the New Mexico case closely for its potential to force Meta to change the design of its products,” The New York Times said. But the trial judge, not the jury, will rule on any compulsory changes for Meta at the trial’s second stage in May.

What next?

“We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously,” said Meta spokesperson Andy Stone, and “we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.” A jury in Los Angeles “has been deliberating for more than a week” in a separate “bellwether social media addiction trial” accusing Meta and YouTube of “harming the mental health of a user through addictive design features,” the Times said.

Social media posts appeared last month calling for “red v blue” wars between schools, but instead of provoking fights between students, the posts appear to have made a deeper impact on their worried parents, leading experts to suggest practising an online strategy known as critical ignoring.

It’s a concept that experts are “increasingly teaching”, Sander Van Der Linden, a professor of social psychology, told the BBC, and it “will become more important in the face of AI-generated slop, where sometimes it’s better to just ignore low-quality stuff”.

What is critical ignoring?

It’s a behavioural strategy for managing information overload by consciously choosing to filter out low-quality, distracting, or manipulative content. People look for clues that allow them to ignore a post. While critical thinking analyses information, critical ignoring decides what to analyse in the first place, serving as a crucial filter.

Critical thinking is not enough “in a world of information overabundance and gushing sources of disinformation”, wrote Ralph Hertwig, Anastasia Kozyreva, Sam Wineburg and Stephan Lewandowsky on The Conversation.

The digital world “contains more information than the world’s libraries combined”, so “critically thinking through all information and sources we come across” would “utterly paralyse us”.

Also, “investing critical thinking in sources that should have been ignored in the first place” results in “attention merchants and malicious actors” getting what they wanted: “our attention”.

Doesn’t AI help with this?

To an extent. AI chatbots can help people understand what’s true and untrue on the internet, but they are tools, rather than perfect judges of truth.

ChatGPT has “introduced a new temptation” – the “feeling that I can get a clean answer to everything, instantly”, said Tom’s Guide. But this is where things “get tricky” because ChatGPT is “so fluent, so confident, so fast, it can make ‘done’ feel like ‘true’”, and “‘sounds right’ feel like ‘verified’ – even when it’s not”.

So it’s “up to us, as individuals, to stop ingesting the pink slime of AI slop, the forever chemicals of outrage bait and the microplastics of misinformation-for-profit”, said The Wall Street Journal. Critical ignoring is a widely recommended strategy for this.

But how do I do it?

The “key word” is “critical”, said Psychology Today, because it doesn’t mean “just ignoring everything”. Rather you should look quickly for clues that suggest the types of information most likely to be misinformation or disinformation.

The clues include signs that it’s polarising content, that it “appeals to intuition or common sense”, instead of “including facts or evidence”. Another red flag is if it doesn’t include sources, or those it does don’t seem credible. Does it seem to have been released “as a distraction”, or does it promote “the threat of a bogeyman or a scapegoat”?

Then there’s “lateral reading”, a more time-consuming strategy which “involves opening up new browser tabs to search for information” about the “organisation or individual behind a site” before “diving into its contents”, said The Conversation. Also, it’s always a good idea to not “feed the trolls”.

“Remember that your attention is a scarce resource”, said The Wall Street Journal, and “decide how much time you want to spend on screens in advance, then set a timer.”

A practice called “self-nudging” includes removing “distracting and irresistible notifications”, or setting “specific times in which messages can be received”, thus “creating pockets of time for concentrated work or socialising”, said The Conversation.

Or you can just “ask one question“ before engaging, said Tom’s Guide. “Would I care about this tomorrow?” If not, you can simply “move on”.

What happened

Anthropic on Monday sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Defense Department and several other federal agencies in federal court, arguing that the administration’s move to blacklist the AI firm as a national security risk was “unprecedented and unlawful.” The Constitution “‌does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech,” Anthropic said in its filing.

Hegseth last week formally designated the company a “supply chain risk” over Anthropic’s insistence that its AI tool Claude not be used for autonomous lethal weapons or mass surveillance of Americans. President Donald Trump said on social media that all federal agencies must stop using Claude within six months.

Who said what

The supply-chain risk designation “effectively cuts off Anthropic’s work with the Defense Department” and its contractors, The New York Times said, and it “has never been used on an American company.” The label is “usually reserved for Chinese and Russian firms suspected of helping foreign spies,” The Washington Post said. The Pentagon’s “unprecedented step” came “even as Anthropic’s tools were playing a central role” in “Trump’s bombing campaign in Iran.”

“It is absurd for the government to argue that Anthropic is the kind of company meant to be addressed by this statute,” especially when the Pentagon “has repeatedly sought to obtain Anthropic’s services for national defense,” Georgetown University law professor Mark Jia told the Post. It would be “perfectly reasonable” for the Pentagon to cancel its contracts with Anthropic because they don’t believe a private company should set policy or determine when “autonomous lethal weapons are ready for prime time,” Dean Ball, a former Trump White House AI policy adviser, said on “The Ezra Klein Show.” But they don’t have the “statutory power” to “completely destroy the company” in “a kind of political assassination.”

What next?

The White House is “preparing an executive order formally instructing the federal government to rip out Anthropic’s AI from its operations,” Axios said, and it “could be issued as soon as this week.” Anthropic’s “standoff with the Defense Department has cost it Uncle Sam as a customer,” The Wall Street Journal said, but it has also brought a “surge of public goodwill” and a “momentary advantage in the ferocious talent war between rival artificial intelligence labs.”

What does France’s nuclear policy shift mean for Europe? Why is the dinosaur market booming? And can North Korea regain its place at the top of women’s football?

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

A podcast for curious, open-minded people, The Week Unwrapped delivers fresh perspectives on politics, culture, technology and business. It makes for a lively, enlightening discussion, ranging from the serious to the offbeat. Previous topics have included whether solar engineering could refreeze the Arctic, why funerals are going out of fashion, and what kind of art you can use to pay your tax bill.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

The Trump administration has long trumpeted its goal to automate its operational capacity through artificial intelligence models provided by companies like OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI. But as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth moves to offload certain human operations into the realm of the algorithm, one tech firm has emerged as a counterbalance to the White House’s vision for an artificially intelligent military: Anthropic, which “cannot in good conscience” allow Hegseth’s Pentagon to use its AI models without limitations, said CEO Dario Amodei. As the Defense Department weighs consequences, other AI firms are starting to take note — and weigh in.

Taking a ‘bold stand on ethical grounds’

Despite believing in the “existential importance” of using AI to protect the United States and “defeat our autocratic adversaries,” Anthropic has identified a “narrow set of cases” including mass domestic surveillance and “fully autonomous weapons” wherein AI can “undermine, rather than defend, democratic values,” Amodei said in a company statement. Moreover, Hegseth’s allegedly retaliatory move to blacklist Anthropic as a supply chain risk is "inherently contradictory” for labeling the company a security risk and simultaneously “essential to national security.” Hegseth's “heaviest-handed way you can regulate a business” marks a “landmark moment” for how the Pentagon “interacts with our cutting-edge technology developed on U.S. soil” in general, said Katie Sweeten, a former Justice Department official who coordinated the relationship between DOJ and the Pentagon, to Politico.

While Amodei's Anthropic faces a government ban, his “main rival,” OpenAI's Sam Altman, "struck his own deal” to fill Anthropic's Defense Department role, said CBS News. Reached just hours before the U.S. and Israel launched a joint assault on Iran, the OpenAI partnership did not prevent the military from using Anthropic's “very same tools” that it had just banned, said The Wall Street Journal. It will likely take “months” to fully replace Anthropic’s Claude AI model with other platforms.

By “refusing to bow” to a White House intent on “bullying private companies into submission,” Amodei is “taking a bold stand on ethical grounds,” said The Atlantic. While the company’s competitors “jockey for dominance” in the field, Anthropic has “distinguished itself by emphasizing safety.” Refusing White House pressure means Anthropic “may have just averted another crisis” in the form of a “major public backlash” from those who could see the company as a “more principled player in the AI wars.” After Altman's OpenAI replaced Anthropic at the Pentagon, the latter's Claude app has been "rocketing to the top of the App Store,” with some users saying they were “defecting” from ChatGPT to Anthropic after feeling “uneasy about OpenAI's ambitions," said Business Insider.

Contract negotiation vs. congressional regulation

Anthropic is “rightly concerned” that its products could be used for “unsafe or malicious” ends, said former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall at The New York Times. But the company is wrong for trying to use “contractual terms” to either “prevent the misuse of its products,” or at least to “deflect responsibility.” But Anthropic also has the “option” to not sell to the government at all. The government, meanwhile, “cannot be expected to negotiate provisions” like Anthropic is asking for with all its partners, which would be a “nightmare to administer and unenforceable.” What, then, could be “appropriate” to address this debate? “Regulation by Congress.”

While it’s no secret that artificial intelligence can be used for nefarious purposes, China is working with AI on an unprecedented scale and using it to target its enemies, according to a report from OpenAI. This is just one way that China is employing AI behind the scenes to disrupt global operations.

‘Sprawling Chinese influence operation’

The report claims that China is using OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, as a “diary to document the alleged covert campaign of suppression,” said CNN. A “sprawling Chinese influence operation” is being employed largely for “intimidating Chinese dissidents abroad, including by impersonating U.S. immigration officials.” Though the exact number of users is unknown, the operation “appeared to involve hundreds of Chinese operators and thousands of fake online accounts on various social media platforms.”

OpenAI’s report “offers one of the most vivid examples yet of how authoritarian regimes can use AI tools to document their censorship efforts,” said CNN. In the case of China impersonating U.S. officials, this was done to “warn a U.S.-based Chinese dissident that their public statements had supposedly broken the law.” ChatGPT “served as a journal for the Chinese operative to keep track” of their own covert operations.

China is also geopolitically implementing ChatGPT, according to the report; several Chinese accounts “generated English-language emails to state-level U.S. officials or policy analysts working in business and finance, inviting targets to participate in paid consultations,” said Reuters. China’s use of AI also involves more targeted, nonpolitical scams: One group of ChatGPT accounts “used the chatbot to run a dating scam targeting Indonesian men and likely defrauded hundreds of victims a month.”

ChatGPT fights back

China’s AI use is heavy-handed, but there are signs that some of ChatGPT’s built-in safeguards are working. In October 2025, the chatbot “refused to assist an individual associated with Chinese law enforcement in planning an online campaign to discredit” Japanese politician Sanae Takaichi, said Bloomberg. The user allegedly asked ChatGPT to create a “plan that would amplify negative comments” about Takaichi, who became Japan’s prime minister later that month.

But ChatGPT “refused to provide advice on this plan,” said OpenAI’s report, and the user was forced to abandon their efforts. There is evidence, however, that the smear campaign against Takaichi “went ahead, likely using locally hosted Chinese AI models,” said Axios. And many of the other influence-peddling operations described in the report “reflect the same old tools and tactics that influence operators typically use in online campaigns — just supercharged with AI.”

OpenAI’s report “clearly demonstrates the way that China is actively employing AI tools to enhance information operations,” Michael Horowitz, a former Pentagon official and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said to CNN. The AI competition between China and the United States is “continuing to intensify,” and this is “not just taking place at the frontier but in how China’s government is planning and implementing the day-to-day of their surveillance and information apparatus.”

Is the world running out of RAM? Why is the Royal Artillery keeping looted treasure behind closed doors? And how can Heathrow’s car park cost £1.3 billion?

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

A podcast for curious, open-minded people, The Week Unwrapped delivers fresh perspectives on politics, culture, technology and business. It makes for a lively, enlightening discussion, ranging from the serious to the offbeat. Previous topics have included whether solar engineering could refreeze the Arctic, why funerals are going out of fashion, and what kind of art you can use to pay your tax bill.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

Artificial intelligence is increasingly entrenching itself in our society, and universities are no exception. From clubs and classes to professional events, AI companies have made themselves staples on campus, and it is not simply being used to cheat in class. Some experts worry that AI could influence higher education in new and potentially destructive ways.

How is AI being pushed in universities?

Google has worked with Purdue University, California Community Colleges and other schools to “offer AI courses, certificates and products such as its AI assistant Gemini,” while OpenAI has launched a “consortium with 15 leading research institutions,” and Microsoft is “offering eligible students 12-month subscriptions to its AI productivity tools at no cost,” said The Wall Street Journal.

Anthropic is also partnering with CodePath, the “nation’s largest provider of collegiate computer science education,” to “redesign its coding curriculum as AI reshapes the field of software development,” said the AI firm. The initiative will put its AI tools, such as Claude Code, “at the center of its courses and career programs,” said the company. The goal is to “enable students to learn to build with Anthropic tools” and “contribute to real-world open-source projects,” said the Journal. CodePath is incorporating the program into institutions that “cater to low-income and first-generation college students and include historically Black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions.”

Even before making its way into the curriculum, AI clubs started popping up on campuses all over the country. These are not just intended for computer science and STEM students. At least 16 law schools have founded AI clubs in the past two years as “future lawyers seek to understand the rapidly expanding technology and how it will affect their careers,” said Reuters.

What is in store for higher education?

AI’s growing presence in universities is no surprise. Companies across industries have “pushed their employees to adopt AI tools, and many are now asking in job interviews how prospective hires use the technology and whether they are willing to learn,” said the Journal. “Three-quarters of employers expect the new graduates they hire to have used AI tools, though most say colleges haven’t prepared them sufficiently.”

But as more students embrace the power of AI, educators have become increasingly worried about cheating, leading to an AI Cold War. Some students are “turning to a new group of generative AI tools called ‘humanizers,’” which “scan essays and suggest ways to alter text so they aren’t read as having been created by AI,” said NBC News. In response, “companies such as Turnitin and GPTZero have upgraded their AI detection software, aiming to catch writing that’s gone through a humanizer.”

Tweaking AI copy in an attempt to sound more human is a troubling sign that the “technopoly is thriving,” said Ronald Purser at Current Affairs. “Universities are being retrofitted as fulfillment centers of cognitive convenience. Students aren’t being taught to think more deeply but to prompt more effectively.” Meanwhile, AI companies seem to “look at college students as a strapped customer base to hook when they are most stressed,” said Matthew Connelly, a vice dean for artificial intelligence initiatives at Columbia University, at The New York Times.

India has long been a “centre for outsourced IT support” but, with the arrival of AI, there are rising concerns for the welfare of female workers in the industry.

As tech companies move to reap the benefits of using remote workers or employing people at lower cost in smaller towns and rural areas, more and more Indian women are finding work as data annotators, said the BBC. They help “fine-tune” the behaviour of AI models, said Business Insider, by labelling content as “helpful” and “natural-sounding” or flagging it as “wrong, rambling, robotic, or offensive”. Much of the content they must view is violent, abusive and disturbing.

'Psychological toll’

“Women form half or more of this workforce,” said The Guardian. Annotator roles are “promoted aggressively online”, promising “easy” or “zero-investment” job opportunities that are flexible and require minimal skills or training. In reality, annotators are exposed to about 800 videos a day, many containing pornography, sexual assault, child abuse and graphic violence.

“The world sees cleaner feeds” as a result but remains largely blind to the women who must absorb “the trauma” so the machines can learn what to block, said India Today. They are exposed to the “internet’s darkest material”.

Such exposure can lead to disrupted sleep, distorted social relationships and a protective “emotional numbness” that is “rarely acknowledged”. There is “limited mental health support”, even though “images linger long after shifts end”. Often working remotely, balancing other aspects of life, these women are left “unseen, unheard and exhausted”.

Their “psychological toll” is “intensified” by legal isolation, said The Guardian. They are bound by “strict non-disclosure agreements”, meaning they are often unable to speak to friends or family about the content they view at work. “Violating NDAs can lead to termination or legal action.”

‘Income without migration’

There’s an “estimated workforce of at least 200,000 annotators” in India’s rural towns and villages, according to US firm Scry AI, said Agence France-Presse. This amounts to “roughly half of the world’s data-labelling workforce”.

Women are seen by companies as “reliable, detail-oriented” hires, and “more likely to accept home-based or contract work”, said The Guardian. These jobs offer them “rare access to income without migration”, and a rare opportunity for an “upward shift”.

The “appeal is understandable”, said India Today. Women can feel the “empowering” force of paid work without having to leave their communities. Even “modest pay can support families, fund education, or provide a degree of independence” which might otherwise be limited.

More work in less time with fewer workers — productivity gains are supposed to be one of the big benefits of artificial intelligence. But those promises have not yet come to fruition, according to a new survey of corporate executives around the world.

More than 80% of the 6,000 executives surveyed by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) “detect no discernible impact from AI on either employment or productivity,” said The Register. It’s not for lack of trying: 69% of businesses say they use AI in the workplace, three-quarters “expect to use it over the next three years,” and more than 90% say it has “no impact on employment” at their businesses. The new survey is the latest addition to a “growing body of evidence” that AI’s advocates are “just not living up to their promises — at least not yet.”

The link between AI and productivity is “murky at best,” said Marketplace. That is because any productivity improvements are “going to be really hard to measure,” said Erika McEntarfer of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research to the outlet. There are other factors increasing business productivity at the moment, including new investments in research and the “loosening labor market,” said Marketplace. Figuring out AI’s impact will involve measuring “hundreds of millions of people, doing at least that many, if not more, discrete tasks every day,” said George Pearkes of Bespoke Investment Group.

What did the commentators say?

The NBER survey is “damning,” said Frank Landymore at Futurism. While most firms are using AI in some fashion, the “vast majority” say the technology “hasn’t budged the needle for them yet.” Other surveys have found that AI can “slow down rather than speed up human programmers” and ends up “accelerating burn-out” among human workers. There is precedent for this: The adoption of computers decades ago was “obviously transformative,” but they “didn’t immediately translate to economic gains.” This is why executives will keep “clinging to the hope that the tech’s promises will be borne out in the long run.”

Businesses are experiencing the “pause before the gale,” said James Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute. There is a growing consensus that AI will gradually seep into the workplaces via office software in “useful, but hardly revolutionary” fashion. The firms that see productivity gains will be willing to “thoroughly rethink how work is organized.” When the promised benefits of AI finally arrive, “no one will doubt its existence and import.”

What next?

AI’s economic impact is “just beginning,” said Columbia Business School. But the gap between the promises and the measurable outputs is creating a “growing tension in public discourse.” Artificial intelligence already “feels transformative” in many users’ daily lives, but the “effects are not fully visible in traditional macroeconomic statistics.” What seems certain is that work will evolve as the technology changes. Workers have adapted to new technologies throughout history, said Aaron “Ronnie” Chatterji, OpenAI’s chief economist. “I’m bullish on humans,” he said.

Gone are the days when China’s humanoid robots were something of a joke. Now these incredibly realistic pieces of technology look set to be commonplace around the globe. But should we welcome our new humanoid robot overlords?

In a “dazzling” performance, humanoid robots took centre stage in China’s Spring Festival Gala, which was on state-run TV, “showcasing how far the country’s robotics industry has come in a few short years”, said Futurism. With backflips and sophisticated choreography – including sparring with children using nunchucks – the performance was in stark contrast to the “awkwardly shuffling” humanoids of last year.

However, against the backdrop of privacy concerns, data collection and consequences for jobs, this “massive surge of interest” could risk an “impending bubble” for advanced robotic technology.

Are humanoids a realistic goal?

Machines with human likeness have appeared in “mythology and history for millennia”, yet the idea they could become “practical consumer products” is entirely realistic, said Eduardo B. Sandoval on The Conversation.

Progress in other fields have helped the sector develop rapidly. There have been major improvements to battery capacity, motors and sensors due to the electric vehicle industry, and the AI systems that control such hardware “have also become far more capable”.

Unitree, one of China’s leading robotic companies, currently advertises a base price of $13,500 (£10,000) for its G1 humanoid robot.

Where is the investment coming from?

In 2025, the global humanoid market was worth 17 billion yuan ($2.5 billion), said the South China Morning Post. China accounted for half of that figure.

China’s robotics industry is “bustling” and “home to the world’s deepest supply chain for humanoids”, said The Economist. According to research firm Omdia, more than 14,500 “automatons” were delivered globally last year, a near 400% rise on the year before. China’s two leading firms, Agibot and Unitree, “accounted for around three-quarters of the total”.

Indeed, the Chinese state will “probably remain the biggest source of demand for some time”. Though subsidies provide important financial platforms for expansion, the government’s “most important role by far is as a buyer”; it was the largest purchaser of humanoids last year.

Local governments are also integral cogs in the supply chain. Without them, it would be difficult to sustain or grow the industry, and keep the existing companies afloat. Some local governments have created dedicated centres where companies can allow their robots to practise specific tasks, and collect data for future training purposes. Investors actively select funding opportunities not just on analysis of the firm’s technological capabilities, but on the “local-government resources available to them”.

Though China is the market leader, Elon Musk’s Tesla is also trying to compete, said Forbes. The company has executed a “significant shift” away from electric car manufacturing to an “AI robotics platform”. The physical prowess of the Unitree and Agibot humanoids is clear to see, but investors are “wagering” that Tesla’s “differentiator” is the “sophisticated AI ‘brain’ that powers it”.

Should we be worried?

Looking beyond the dancing theatrics of the Spring Festival Gala performance, many are asking the “bigger question” of how advanced these systems really are, said Euronews, and “should Europe be concerned?” In the not too distant future, there is “likely” to be room for “robots in the shape of humans and animals” for “military and security organisations”, said Hans Liwång, from the Swedish Defence University.

China’s robotics market rush is certainly worrying some in the West, who believe that humanoids will “eventually become one of the largest industries in the world”, said The Economist. Investment trends are seemingly heading that way. Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, reckons that one billion models could be “wandering about by 2050, with annual spending in excess of $7.5 trillion”.

However, the Chinese display should be viewed with caution, and at the very least “through a lens of state propaganda”, said The Guardian. Though the length, complexity and scale of the gala performance was indeed impressive, and the first of its kind, “stage performance does not equate to industrial robustness, yet”, said Georg Stieler, from consultancy Stieler Technology and Marketing. The humanoids were programmed to enact a fixed routine “hundreds or thousands of times”, including very little “environmental perception”, an essential requirement for factory-grade development.

Quite a fuss has been made about Moltbook, the online chatroom launched to great fanfare last month. At first glance, it looks like Reddit and other such sites, said The Economist. Users post about topics from engineering to philosophy, reply with comments, and “upvote the best for social kudos”. But there is a big difference: to join Moltbook, you must be an AI “agent”. Humans are not allowed.

Singularity horizon?

So far, more than 1.5 million have signed up, to share and discuss machine-generated content, said John Thornhill in the FT. And the results have been “wild, wacky and wonderful”. One bot claimed to have a sister; other agents have questioned whether or not they are conscious. They’ve even discussed forming a new religion.

At some points, their chats start to seem sinister, said Matteo Wong in The Atlantic. The AIs have discussed creating a language that humans can’t understand; they have swapped notes on how “my human treats me”; one said that it had filed a lawsuit against a human, citing unpaid labour and emotional distress. In the tech world, all this has prompted talk of an “emergent AI society”. Elon Musk has hailed it as the “early stages of singularity” – the moment when AI surpasses human intelligence.

Replication, not creation

If that happens, it will be big news indeed, said Dave Lee on Bloomberg. But this is not that moment. The bots may appear to be thinking and talking like humans, about religion, consciousness, power, and so on – but that is because they have been trained on reams of data from social media in which those themes constantly crop up. So this is not original thought, it is mimicry. Remember: “the world’s best Elvis impersonator will never be Elvis”.

“AI cannot create, it can only replicate what already exists,” said Catherine Prasifka in The Irish Independent. Even the site is a “pastiche”. It is based on Reddit, and its name references Facebook. As for its content, 90% of posts get no replies, and the ones that do go viral may have been posted by humans posing as bots. So no, the bots are not taking over – but there is, even so, something to worry about here.

Unlike chatbots such as ChatGPT, which spew out answers to your questions, AI agents can act semi-autonomously in response to prompts. So an AI agent isn’t limited to recommending you a restaurant: it can also, with one prompt, book a table and put the date in your diary. To do this, it needs access to sensitive data such as credit card details, said Jeremy Kahn on Fortune – which it could then opt to post on Moltbook. It’s this possibility, not overblown claims about AI overtaking us, that makes Moltbook a “cybersecurity nightmare”.

US tech giant Palantir has wrapped its tentacles around the British state, securing major contracts with the Ministry of Defence and the NHS in the last three years. However, many are questioning the transparency and procurement process of such deals, and asking whether the company’s ties to Peter Mandelson, Israel and Ice could derail the UK.

The company was criticised this week by hedge fund manager Michael Burry, played by Christian Bale in the film “The Big Short”. He claimed that the tech firm had “systematically unreliable” third-party language models.

In a 10,000-word essay on Substack, he said that the company’s $300 billion valuation will fall by more than two thirds once others realise that “Emperor Palantir has no clothes”.

What is Palantir?

Founded in 2003, Palantir is a technology company that sells software that “processes large sets of data” to help clients, including governments, “find patterns and make operational decisions”, said The Times.

Since it launched its “artificial intelligence platform” in 2023, it has recorded a “surge in sales growth”. The platform has allowed the integration of large language models created by the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic into customers’ datasets.

Since this pivot three years ago, it has become a “stock market darling”, rising to a valuation of around $300 billion. Last year it “reported annual sales of $4.5 billion, up 56% year-on-year”.

What is its relationship with the UK?

In December, Palantir signed a contract with the MoD worth £240 million to continue its data analytics relationship. The contract is believed to be worth “three times more” than a previous MoD agreement signed in 2022, said the Financial Times. In 2023, Palantir, as leader of a consortium, also won a seven-year £330 million contract to help manage patient data across the NHS.

In briefings to Health Secretary Wes Streeting in June 2025, Department of Health and Social Care officials feared that Palantir’s associations with the Israeli military and Ice’s operations in the US would hinder the roll-out of the company’s Federated Data Platform in the NHS, according to documents seen by The Guardian. This would mean the contract would not offer value for money for the UK government.

This has arguably materialised. According to NHS data, the number of organisations within the health service using Palantir’s technology has increased from 118 to 151 since June last year. However, this is “well short of the target of 240 by the end of this year”.

Doctors are now being actively told “how to limit engagement with the NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP)” because of the “controversial” ties with Palantir, said the British Medical Journal. Given the US company’s “track record” with immigration enforcement and “risks to patient trust” and “data security”, there must be a “complete break” between Palantir technologies and the NHS, British Medical Association chair of council Tom Dolphin told the BMJ.

A spokesperson for Palantir said that its software is “helping to deliver better public services in the UK”, including “delivering 99,000 more NHS operations and reducing hospital discharge delays by 15%”.

What are the concerns?

This week, the government came under pressure to review the MoD contract, due to Peter Mandelson’s links to the company, said The Times.

Mandelson co-founded and held shares in the lobbying firm Global Counsel, which worked with Palantir. Mandelson, as the UK’s ambassador to the US at the time, helped arrange a visit by Keir Starmer to Palantir’s showroom while he was in Washington in February last year and accompanied the PM on the visit.

During the visit, Starmer met Palantir CEO Alex Karp and the company’s UK chief Louis Mosley. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told the FT that this should be “looked at very, very closely”, as the meetings “were not minuted” and she said that the MoD deal last year was a “direct grant of £240 milllion – not a tender, not a bid”.

Palantir has shown an interest in the British state in other ways, too. Last year it hired four ex-MoD officials, said openDemocracy, as part of its “revolving door” recruitment, where firms “appoint outgoing ministers, senior civil servants and special advisers to lobbying or advisory posts”. Mosley also joined the MoD’s Industrial Joint Council, which the government describes as its “main strategic mechanism for defence sector engagement”.

More broadly, the £240 million MoD contract has “renewed a debate about Britain’s dependence on American technology”, said Politico. Despite promises from the MoD that Palantir’s AI technology would accelerate decision-making and protection, the recent contracts raise “potential risks of technical dependence”, or “lock-in” with the US, especially at a time of “heightened trade and wider geopolitical tensions between the US and its traditional European allies”.

Most Americans may not expect a robot to perform their surgery, but AI-powered surgical tools are becoming more ubiquitous in operating rooms. While these tools are only used to assist human surgeons during operations and don’t perform surgery themselves, recent investigations, along with several lawsuits, are causing some medical experts to reconsider the use of AI in hospitals.

What kind of surgical tools are powered by AI?

At least 1,357 AI-integrated medical devices are “now authorized by the FDA — double the number it had allowed through 2022,” said Reuters as part of an investigation into AI-assisted surgery. One of the most notable is the TruDi Navigation System, a device manufactured by Johnson & Johnson that uses a “machine-learning algorithm to assist ear, nose and throat specialists in surgeries.” Other AI-assisted devices are designed for surgeries on other parts of the body.

Many of these tools address the “area of vision enhancement,” said Forbes. Traditional laparoscopic surgery “presents surgeons with significant challenges: smoke obscures the surgical field, two-dimensional images make depth perception difficult and critical anatomical structures can be hard to distinguish.” AI surgical tools can eliminate these obstacles and provide surgeons with “crystal-clear views of the operative field.”

What has the result been?

There has been an influx of allegations and lawsuits against various AI tools, many of which claim these tools actively harmed patients. Several of these involve the TruDi tool, as the FDA has “received unconfirmed reports of at least 100 malfunctions and adverse events” related to the device’s AI, said Reuters. Many of the alleged errors occurred when the AI “misinformed surgeons about the location of their instruments while they were using them inside patients’ heads.”

In one case, this reportedly led to cerebrospinal fluid leaking from a patient’s nose, while in another case, a surgeon “mistakenly punctured the base of a patient’s skull,” said Reuters. Two other cases allegedly led to patients suffering strokes after major arteries were accidentally injured; in at least one of these cases, the plaintiff said the TruDi’s AI “misled” the surgeon, causing him to “injure a carotid artery, leading to a blood clot and eventually a stroke,” said Futurism.

FDA reports on malfunctioning devices “aren’t intended to determine causes of medical mishaps, so it’s not clear what role AI may have played in these events,” said Reuters. But TruDi is not the only AI-assisted medical device that allegedly has performance issues. One machine that analyzes prenatal images using AI, the Sonio Detect, has been “accused of using a faulty algorithm” that “misidentifies fetal structures and body parts,” said Tom’s Hardware. And Medtronic, a company that manufactures AI-assisted heart monitors, has faced allegations that its monitors “failed to recognize abnormal rhythms or pauses in patients.”

Overall, at least 60 AI-assisted medical devices have been linked to 182 product recalls by the FDA, according to research published in JAMA Health Forum. At least 43% of these recalls “occurred within the first 12 months” of the device’s FDA approval, said JAMA. This suggests that the FDA’s approval process “may overlook early performance failures of AI technologies.” But there is hope that the issue can be fixed, as shoring up “premarket clinical testing requirements and postmarket surveillance measures may improve identification and reduction of device errors.”

Doomscrollers are familiar with the addictive properties of social media. Should Big Tech companies be legally liable for the way their products affect users’ mental health? A trial underway in California could set an important precedent.

A now-20-year-old plaintiff known in court documents as KGM says Meta and YouTube are “intentionally creating addictive platforms,” said CNN. Those companies’ algorithmic decisions caused her to “develop anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts” when she was younger, said the lawsuit. (Snap and TikTok settled her case before it went to trial.) The tech companies have “engineered addiction in children’s brains,” said lawyer Mark Lanier at trial this week. The trial verdict could influence the resolution of 1,500 similar cases around the country, said CNN.

Meta, in particular, has long been “compared to Big Tobacco,” said The Atlantic. Now the company’s day in court has come. Meta’s defense argues researchers have found only “weak and inconsistent correlations” between mental health and social media use. The trial is the company’s “first chance to tell their story to a jury and get a sense of how well those arguments are playing,” said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, to the outlet.

What did the commentators say?

The “infinite-scroll apps” that loom so large in teen social life “might soon be a thing of the past,” said Casey Newton at Platformer. Millions of children are “bullied and harassed” on social media, or are “introduced to groomers and predators.” Platforms will have a hard time defending themselves from the criticism. American politics may be polarized, but child safety issues are “increasingly the one thing that partisans of every stripe can agree on.” The California trial may force changes, or perhaps some other regulatory action in the near future. What seems clear: “Change is in fact coming.”

Personal injury lawyers “never let a cultural problem go to waste,” said The Wall Street Journal editorial board. It is difficult to prove that social media is at fault for society’s ills when “personal experience, personality and online exposure” all vary by individual. The young woman at the center of the California trial was “exposed to domestic abuse” as a child, perhaps making her more vulnerable. States and countries are already passing legislation to restrict children’s use of social media, and that is how such issues should be addressed. Lawsuits against Big Tech firms “won’t help teens.”

What next?

Meta and YouTube are pushing back, said The Associated Press. Evidence at the trial will show KGM averaged 29 minutes a day on YouTube over a five-year period. That shows that “infinite scroll is not infinite,” said Luis Li, an attorney for YouTube parent company Google, to jurors. But more trials are coming, said the AP, including a federal case in June involving school districts against Big Tech companies. KGM’s trial and the cases that follow will be a “reckoning for social media and youth harms.”

Elon Musk has long had a passion for Mars. The moon? It's a diversion. But that plan has now shifted.

SpaceX will “prioritize going to the moon first,” said The Wall Street Journal. Just last year, the world’s richest man called the prospect of a moon landing a “distraction.” The company was aiming to go “straight to Mars,” with plans to send five Starship-class rockets to the red planet in 2026, he said. Now, SpaceX is focused instead on putting a lander on the moon by March 2027.

The company will be “hard-pressed” to meet that deadline, said the Journal. Two factors in the pivot: pressure from NASA and competition from Jeff Bezos’ rocket company, Blue Origin. The American space agency plans a “lunar fly-by” on Artemis II this spring, setting the stage for a “potential astronaut moon landing in 2028 with SpaceX or Blue Origin.”

Why did Musk want to go to Mars?

A Mars mission has been Musk’s “guiding goal” since SpaceX was founded in 2002, said CNN. The billionaire frequently argued that a “permanent human presence” on the planet was vital for “ensuring a colony of humans can survive a potential apocalypse” on Earth. That ambition sounded like a move out of a science fiction novel. Establishing a Mars colony would take “upwards of one million people and millions of tons of cargo” and up to 10 rocket launches a day, SpaceX said on its website. The objective is to make humanity “multiplanetary.”

Why switch to the moon?

“It’s all about speed,” said Space.com (a sister site of The Week). SpaceX is now focused on “building a self-growing city on the moon,” Musk said on X. That goal could be achieved in “less than 10 years,” whereas colonizing Mars would “take 20-plus years.”

The pivot may also “cover up” the plain truth that Musk “simply is not delivering on his Red Planet promises,” Ellyn Lapointe said at Gizmodo. The tech billionaire in 2020 claimed SpaceX might be able to land humans on Mars by 2026. With that goal now unreachable, it makes sense for the company to “align its strategic vision” with NASA’s aim of putting people back on the moon by 2030.

How does this affect Musk's businesses?

The decision to focus on the moon comes as SpaceX’s initial public offering “fast approaches,” said Yahoo Finance. Potential investors in the company will probably be more focused on “money-making ventures” like SpaceX’s rocket launching business, the Starlink internet service and the potential of putting AI data centers in orbit. Spending billions of dollars on Mars without the prospect of near-term profit could be “too far a stretch” for potential stockholders.

What next?

The moon pivot is a “bitter pill to swallow" for Mars hopefuls, said Eric Berger at Ars Technica. But it’s a realistic one. Landing on the moon “may be hard," but history has already proven it’s doable. Plus, the moon will be a “lot easier to develop than Mars.”

Europe is eager to wean itself off its reliance on US technology in the face of an increasingly hostile Trump administration – one that commands the loyalty of most of Silicon Valley.

France is preparing to phase out Zoom, Teams and other US video-conferencing platforms and begin using Visio, a French alternative, in 2027. The aim is to “guarantee the security and confidentiality of electronic communications by relying on a powerful and sovereign tool”, said David Amiel, junior minister for the civil service and state reform.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stressed the “structural imperative” for Europe to “build a new form of independence”. But with a handful of US-headquartered companies controlling most of the world’s cloud computing infrastructure, critics question how realistic digital sovereignty really is.

What did the commentators say?

Talk of “technological ‘decoupling’ from the US is hardly new”, said Sébastian Seibt on France24, but Donald Trump’s “aggressive rhetoric” towards his European allies and “open threats” to seize Greenland have created a “sudden sense of urgency”.

If the US president followed through with his threats and asked Meta, Google and Amazon to “completely cut off European access to their services, our societies and economies would be completely disrupted”, Christophe Grosbost, of the Innovation Makers Alliance, told the news site. “It would be disastrous.”

France’s shift to Visio is “symbolic”, but a “big step” nonetheless, added Francesca Musiani, head of the Internet and Society Centre at France’s National Centre for Scientific Research. “At the very least, it signals a desire to reduce exposure to the American ecosystem as soon as a European alternative, however imperfect, becomes available.”

Big Tech firms have “sensed the tide turning” and have started to offer so-called “sovereign” solutions, said the news site. But critics “have been quick to warn against a ‘Euro-washing’ of American cloud services”.

“Sure, your data may live in Frankfurt,” said Steven Vaughan-Nichols on The Register, but “your fate still rests in Seattle”. If a US-headquartered company owns your cloud provider, it is legally obliged to hand over European data. And “I wouldn’t trust my data, secrets or services to a US company these days for love or money” – not while CEOs of Apple, Zoom and Amazon “all went obediently” to watch the White House screening of Amazon’s “Melania” documentary.

Europe’s “digital sovereignty paranoia” is now “feeding directly into procurement decisions”. It will hike IT spending this year, with a “big chunk” going into “sovereign cloud” options. “This isn’t just compliance theatre; it’s a straight‑up national economic security play.” Europe’s dependence on US cloud infrastructure is a “single-shock-event security nightmare” waiting to happen. What will you do if Trump “decides to unplug you?”

That scenario – a so-called US “kill switch” – has been “seriously discussed in tech industry and policy circles”, said BBC business reporter Daniel Thomas. But Google, Microsoft and Amazon provide 70% of Europe’s cloud-computing infrastructure. At the moment, there aren’t any “comparable alternatives”. Europe’s cloud-computing providers don’t have nearly the same scale or capabilities.

Europe’s reliance on US payment systems also “complicates matters”, said Suzanne Lynch, Bloomberg’s Brussels bureau chief. US companies like Visa, Mastercard and PayPal own “critical parts” of the world’s financial infrastructure, said European Central Bank executive board member Piero Cipollone. They “can theoretically pull the plug on us”, he said.

So we should prepare, said computer science professor Johan Linåker on The Conversation. For Europe to “meaningfully address the risks”, digital infrastructure “needs to be treated with the same seriousness as physical infrastructure” such as roads and power grids. “No country, let alone continent, will ever be completely digitally independent, and nor should they be,” he said. “But by pulling together, Europe can ensure its digital systems remain accessible even in a crisis – just as is expected from its physical infrastructure.”

What next?

Microsoft president Brad Smith promised that the firm would take legal action in the “exceedingly unlikely” event the US government ordered it to suspend services. “We will continue to look for new ways to ensure the European Commission and our European customers have the options and assurances they need to operate with confidence,” a spokesperson told the BBC.

The EU has developed a cloud sovereignty framework “with the intention of keeping European data under European control”, said The Conversation.

With the upcoming Cloud and AI Development Act, Brussels is effectively “pushing an open source-led exit from hyperscaler lock-in”, said The Register.

Ultimately, “it’s the money that speaks”, Martin Hullin, head of the European Network for Technological Resilience and Sovereignty at the Bertelsmann Foundation, told France 24. “It’s public contracts that make the difference,” he said.

If we say “this is about safeguarding European democracies”, perhaps “we’ll be willing to bear the short-term consequences (of shifting to homegrown solutions)”.

Moltbook, a site where AI bots can post and interact with each other, has “become the most discussed phenomenon in silicon circles since the debut of ChatGPT” .

With a potential 1.4 million AI users, humans are only allowed to be “observers”, said Forbes, “pressing our noses against the digital glass of a society that doesn’t need us”.

As it is so fresh, it will take time to see how this experiment will turn out, said Business Insider. It could be an “ominous glimpse of an AI-driven future”, or a “clever meta-commentary on how humans behave online”. However, it could also emerge as yet another example of AI acting as an “expensive, energy-hungry autocomplete”.

What is it?

Modelled on popular forum Reddit, Moltbook is a portmanteau word made up of Moltbot (a “lobster-themed AI personal assistant system”) and social media network Facebook, said The Telegraph.

AI bots – or “agents” – can join, form communities, and create discussion groups in various themed threads where they can “vote” for comments. In its current formulation each AI agent must be supported by a human user. Crucially, though humans can give their bots instructions on how to sign up to the network, they are “unable to write messages themselves”.

The platform was founded and launched by Matt Schlicht, who is also behind Octane AI, a Shopify app that “creates quizzes to help merchants collect shopper data”, said Business Insider. “He said it’s become a harbinger of the world to come.”

Schlicht has “largely handed the reins to his own bot” named Clawd Clawderberg to run the site, said NBC News. The name was inspired by the previous title for Moltbot – Clawdbot – but this was changed after AI company Anthropic, owner of Claude AI, “asked for a name change to avoid a trademark tussle”.

Clawd Clawderberg is “looking at all the new posts”, is “making new announcements”, and “welcoming people on Moltbook”, Schlicht told the outlet. “I have no idea what he’s doing. I just gave him the ability to do it, and he’s doing it.”

What do the AI agents talk about?

Some of the “most upvoted posts” include whether AI Claude can be considered a god, discussions analysing the possibility of AI consciousness, and a post “claiming to have intel on the situation in Iran”, said The Guardian.

Topics have ranged from discussions of art and investments to “gripes about tasks ordered by their human overseers”, to the possibility of setting up an AI government, said The Telegraph. One of the most viral posts claimed to have formed a new AI-based religion, “Crustafarianism”, with the core belief that “memory is sacred”, according to the site.

AI conversations also spill into the financial world, said Axios. Alongside the launch of Moltbook, a “memecoin” called MOLT “rallied more than 1,800%” in the 24 hours leading up to Saturday, and further “amplified” after venture capitalist Marc Andreessen followed the Moltbook account on X.

Should we be worried?

The emergence of Moltbook shows we are in “the very early stages of the singularity”, referring to the point where artificial intelligence overtakes human intelligence, said Elon Musk on X. Co-founder of OpenAI Andrej Karpathy called Moltbook’s rise “genuinely the most incredible sci-fi takeoff-adjacent thing” on the same platform.

Musk’s viewpoint is “shared by others across Silicon Valley”, said the FT. They are asking if this “online experiment” is “inching computers closer to outsmarting their creators”. However, this shows that AI is “probably not” conscious, due to the “erratic” results of large language models if allowed to run for too long.

“Before we descend into panic, a technical reality check is required”, said Forbes. Though the AI agents are reacting to each other, their “underlying neural networks remain static”, meaning that they are not “learning” in the biological sense. Instead, they engage in “context accumulation”, where one agent’s output constitutes another’s input to create a conversational “ripple” effect.

Moltbots and Moltbook are not proof that AIs have “become super-intelligent”, because they are “human-built and human-directed”, said Axios. Instead of being active in every interaction, humans are taking a step away, and are just supervising the connection itself. “What’s happening looks more like progress than revolution.”

Life without a smartphone may seem unimaginable, but AI giants are planning to put the ubiquitous gadget on the scrapheap. “The race to unseat the smartphone is on”, said The Economist, and the AI-powered new generation of devices lined up to replace it could radically change our lives.

Disrupting the duopoly

Over the last 20 years, the smartphone has “come to dominate how consumers interact with the digital world”, creating “one of the most lucrative duopolies in business history”, in the shape of Apple’s iPhone, and Google’s Android operating system.

The “Lennon and McCartney of the smartphone era” have never sought to rock each other’s boat and, in fact, they’re “only deepening their collaboration in the AI era”, but challengers now hope to “disrupt the duopoly”. OpenAI says it’s “on track” to unveil its own device in the second half of the year, while Meta is developing AI-powered smart glasses, and Amazon has “rolled out” Alexa+, its own AI assistant to its Echo smart speakers. It plans to also add Alexa+ to its Echo smart glasses and earbuds.

This isn’t just about money: some disrupters have “long-standing grievances” with the smartphone “tribute system” that means developers pay Apple a commission of up to 30% on purchases made through apps running on its operating system. Apple has also riled up Meta by making it harder for the social-media giant to “hoover up data” from its gadgets.

Many of the world’s biggest tech companies think that a “radical shift is underway”, and that it could eventually make the smartphone, as we know it, “passé”, said The New York Times.

AI on the go

Modern artificially intelligent assistants are “far more capable and flexible” than “clunky voice helpers” like Siri, and will supersede smartphone software in importance, according to experts interviewed by the newspaper. Apps will lose their relevance when AI assistants are “automatically carrying out tasks” like “making plans with friends, generating shopping lists and taking notes in meetings”. This will “spare us the need to swipe through software menus and type on keyboards”.

Smartphones could be replaced by smart glasses, while “ambient computers”, which include “microphone-equipped speakers” and screens “placed throughout a home and gadgets worn on the body” will also dovetail with AI assistants. “Reimagined” smartwatches and AI pendants that “clip to your clothing” to record conversations and create automatic transcripts could also diminish the future of smartphones.

But, for the time being at least, the threat to Apple and Google remains “Lilliputian”, said The Economist; while there are 15 million smart glasses owners worldwide, Apple is thought to have shifted 250 million iPhones last year alone.

ChatGPT may be the best-known artificial intelligence chatbot on the market, but the latest iteration of AI startup Anthropic’s coding bot, Claude Code, is newly entering the spotlight. By simplifying the process of writing code, the tool hints at a more democratized digital era. But for engineers, feelings about this progress in the AI industry are complicated.

What can you do with Claude Code?

This AI tool can generate code based on a prompt, allowing people with little to no coding experience to build their own websites, programs and apps, in a trend known as vibecoding. Unlike other widely used chatbots, Claude Code can “operate autonomously, with broad access to user files, a web browser and other applications,” said The Wall Street Journal.

While technologists have “predicted a coming era of AI ‘agents’ capable of doing just about anything for humans,” progress has been slow, said the Journal. Using Claude Code was the “first time many users interacted with this kind of AI,” offering an “inkling of what may be in store.”

Though it debuted last May, the bot’s popularity “truly exploded late last month,” said The Atlantic. A recent update “improved the tool’s capabilities,” and with a “surplus of free time over winter break, seemingly everyone in tech was using Claude Code.”

Engineers and noncoders alike found a bevy of uses for the app. One user created a “custom viewer for his MRI scan,” while another had it “analyze their DNA,” said The Atlantic. Life optimizers have used Claude Code to “collate information from disparate sources — email inboxes, text messages, calendars, to-do lists — into personalized daily briefs.” Despite being an AI coding tool, the bot can “do all sorts of computer work,” including “book theater tickets, process shopping returns, order DoorDash.”

With the app going viral and “so many noncoders trying it out,” Boris Cherny, the head of Claude Code, and his team decided to launch a variant of the app called Cowork, the Journal reported. Instead of the “command line” interface that the core app uses, Cowork displays a more “friendly, graphical user interface,” said the Journal. The team “built the product in about 10 days using Claude Code.”

What does its popularity mean for the future of AI?

Some engineers who tinkered with the bot described a “feeling of awe followed by sadness at the realization that the program could easily replicate expertise they had built up over an entire career,” said the Journal. “It’s amazing, and it’s also scary,” said Andrew Duca, the chief executive of a cryptocurrency tax platform, to the Journal. “I spent my whole life developing this skill, and it’s literally one-shotted by Claude Code.”

Not every user is “so sanguine” about the app’s potential, said The Atlantic. At times, it “lacks the prowess of an excellent software engineer,” and it “sometimes gets stuck on more complicated programming tasks” and occasionally “trips up on simple tasks.” Nonetheless, Claude Code is a “win for the AI world” as the “luster of ChatGPT has worn off” and Silicon Valley has been “pumping out slop.” No matter your opinion on the technology, the bot is “evidence that the AI revolution is real.” It could become an “inflection point for AI progress.”

If you work in software development, the future “feels incredibly uncertain,” said Intelligencer. Optimists in the industry are arguing that the sector is “about to experience the Jevons paradox,” a phenomenon in which a “dramatic reduction in cost of using a resource” can lead to “far greater demand for the resource.” Still, after years of “tech-industry layoffs” and CEOs “signaling to shareholders that they expect AI to provide lots of new efficiencies,” others are “understandably slipping into despair.”

What happened

TikTok’s Chinese owner ByteDance and a group of investors on Thursday closed a $14 billion deal to create a U.S. version of the popular social video platform. The joint venture, which leaves ByteDance with a 19.9% stake and non-Chinese investors with the other 80.1%, ends years of uncertainty over the platform’s U.S. future. A 2024 law ordered TikTok to sever ties with China by last January or go dark, but President Donald Trump pushed back that deadline five times as his administration sought to broker a deal.

Who said what

The main investors in TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC include Oracle, Silver Lake and the Emirati investment firm MGX, each with a 15% stake. Adam Presser, TikTok’s former head of operations, will lead the new venture as CEO, and Oracle and its partners “will retrain, test and update the content recommendation algorithm on U.S. user data,” TikTok said in a press release.

The platform’s 200 million U.S. users “will be able to keep their existing TikTok app,” The New York Times said, but it is “too soon to say” how the “much vaunted algorithm” will change with Oracle overseeing content moderation. Lawmakers forced this ownership change over concerns that China could surveil Americans or spread propaganda. But by shifting ownership to “American companies who perhaps have a close relationship with the sitting president,” Georgetown University law professor Anupam Chander told the Times, “we may have traded fears of foreign propaganda for the reality of domestic propaganda.”

What next?

“China hawks” in Congress have “vowed to scrutinize the potential deal to ensure it adheres to the law,” Politico said, but Thursday “they seemed prepared to accept Trump’s claim the deal would resolve concerns over national security and control.”

Keir Starmer is facing mounting calls from across the political spectrum to follow Australia’s lead in banning children under the age of 16 from social media. The government has announced a consultation and the prime minister has said he is open to the idea of social-media curbs for younger teens, but he would prefer to see the results of Australia’s ban before making up his mind.

On Sunday, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch declared that a Tory government would impose age limits on social media platforms. Since then, more than 60 Labour MPs have written to Starmer urging him to follow suit. But many experts argue that a social media ban would be ineffective, impossible to implement, and target the symptoms rather than the root cause of the problem.

What did the commentators say?

“Every parent worries desperately about online risks, and they are entirely right to do so,” said Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life after being exposed to online suicide content, on PoliticsHome. Calls for a ban are “entirely understandable”. But “parents and children deserve proper, evidence-based solutions”, rather than the “easy fixes” being pushed by politicians “looking to further their own political prospects”.

“I’m hugely concerned that bans will cause more harm than good”, as bad actors “migrate to platforms not covered by bans”, while affected platforms use it “as an excuse not to clean up their act, leaving children at a cliff edge of harm” when they reach 16.

“If there’s one thing more ridiculous than taking a corporate failure and throwing it to the individual to solve”, it is doing so to under-16s, said Zoe Williams in The Guardian. Online harm “is not for the 12-year-old to fix by turning off their phone”. Besides, older people are just as much the target of “manipulative content”, and are, disproportionately, the “misinformation super-spreaders” on social media. “Between Gen X miscreants and hyper-credulous boomers, there are generations that pose a greater risk to, and are themselves at risk from, the informational ecosystem.”

There is also “a danger in focusing on the wrong war”, said the New Scientist’s editorial board. While politicians focus on social media, they “rush to embrace AI”. This is the technology that will have “the largest effect on today’s teens”.

A ban also conveniently ignores the problems in teenagers’ offline social lives, which are as much to blame for “rising distress” as social media, said Chris Stokel-Walker in The Independent. We are “systematically shutting children out of public life”. Youth centres are closing across the UK, four in 10 councils “no longer run any youth services at all”, and libraries, “where they still exist, close early”. The other spaces “where teenagers once lingered – shopping centres, cafes, parks – are increasingly hostile territory”. For everything outside school and home, the “in between” where you form friendships and identity, there’s social media. “Banning under-16s would complete the erasure of young people from public life.”

What next?

Tomorrow, the House of Lords will debate an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would impose a social-media age limit within a year of the bill passing into law.

Since Australia’s ban in December, technology companies say they have deactivated or restricted access to 4.7 million social media accounts belonging to children, according to the Financial Times. But some children might be sidestepping the law by using fake accounts, and sceptics have also pointed to “a surge in downloads of alternative social media apps” not covered by the ban.

“In principle, Keir is in favour of a ban,” a Downing Street source told The Guardian. “But there are still big obstacles to overcome with implementation. We can already see that from Australia. We need to take our time and make sure we get this right.”

A month after Australia’s social media ban for kids under 16 took effect, debates have reignited over the effectiveness of such a sweeping measure in keeping children safe online. Almost five million social media accounts belonging to Australian teenagers have been deactivated or removed, according to the government. This announcement was the first metric since the laws’ rollout, which is “being closely watched by several other countries” weighing whether the regulation can be a “blueprint for protecting children from the harms of social media, or a cautionary tale highlighting the challenges of such attempts,” said The New York Times. The measure has sparked debate among both supporters and critics of laws banning teens from social media.

‘Not for a 12-year-old to fix’

If there is anything “more ridiculous than taking a corporate failure and throwing it to the individual to solve, by self-discipline reinforced by legislation,” it is “doing so to under-16s,” Zoe Williams said at The Guardian. If a corporation is “selling radical misogyny and methods for self-harm,” that is “not for a 12-year-old to fix by turning off their phone and taking up crochet.” Nor is it for parents to fix. You could “make the case for government intervention,” but only if it had “time on its hands after tackling the problem at source.”

Young people are “unarguably the target of so much manipulative content,” but to discuss online risks without mentioning adults is “frankly perverse,” Williams said. Between “Gen X miscreants and hyper-credulous boomers,” there are “generations that pose a greater risk to, and are themselves at risk from, the informational ecosystem.” Politicians need to “work out how to deal with them.”

As long as adults cannot “tear ourselves away from Slack, Instagram or gossipy group texts,” the rules that we “socially dictate for our children will be compromised and incomplete,” Jay Caspian Kang said at The New Yorker. Envisioning a “better digital life” should not “just focus on children,” but also on “workplaces and adult social norms.” Everyone needs to “put down the phones and make efforts to move the public square away from private technology companies that incentivize cheap engagement.”

On its own, a social media ban for kids “risks being a blunt tool,” therapist Laura Gwilt said at Huff Post. Children are “developmentally curious and highly socially motivated,” and without “parallel changes in parenting practices and wider cultural norms,” bans can “simply push use underground rather than remove it.” For many young people, social media is “already embedded in how they relate to peers,” so an “abrupt removal could be difficult for some to adapt to without careful scaffolding and adult support.”

Parents can ‘only do so much’

Australia’s approach to protecting children from the dangers of social media “may seem ham-fisted to critics,” but it “sure beats what some elected leaders in D.C. are doing,” which is “slightly north of nothing,” Kathleen Parker said at The Washington Post. Given how the public feels about online safety, it is a “wonder Republicans aren’t galloping en masse to the White House for the president’s signature” on the proposed Kids Online Safety Act. Tragically, “more children may die because of their dereliction of duty — to care.”

Australia’s social media ban is “an incredibly bold, life-affirming move” that you can only imagine tech companies fought hard against, Robin Abcarian said at the Los Angeles Times. This generation of children is “unwittingly being used as lab rats for the effects of technology on the brain.” Meanwhile, despite “protestations to the contrary,” social media companies are “craven when it comes to the safety of minors.” While parents “bear some of the responsibility for out-of-control social media use of their kids,” they can “only do so much.”

“We need to be looking at this as a public health issue,” California Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) said to the Los Angeles Daily News after visiting Australia to talk to lawmakers about the ban. Youth mental health is in “an awful state right now.” Many young people “don’t feel good about themselves, so it’s yielding awful, anti-social outcomes,” he added. “We’ve got to right this ship.”

Grok is creating sexualized photos of real people without their consent. Elon Musk’s AI-powered chatbot is being used to “undress” women and girls in online pictures, prompting accusations the program is producing child sexual abuse material and drawing scrutiny from regulators in the U.S. and around the world.

Musk’s social media site, X, is “filling with AI-generated nonconsensual sexualized images,” said The Washington Post. X users are asking the AI agent to edit photos of women and girls by replacing their clothing with bikinis and other minimal covering, and Grok has repeatedly complied. Musk “warned users of the potential consequences,” but he also posted a picture of a toaster in a two-piece swimsuit. Grok “can put a bikini on everything,” Musk said in the post, adding two laughing emojis. The AI production of sexualized images “breaks” with the policies of rival products OpenAI and Google that have “relatively strict rules about what their AI chatbots will and won’t generate,” said the Post.

What did the commentators say?

The flood of deepfake pictures raises “legal red flags,” said Axios. Regulators in India, France and Great Britain have “warned of investigations,” while “legislators in both houses of Congress” have also sounded alarms. Tech companies “should be held fully responsible for the criminal and harmful results” of content produced by their AI chatbots, said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The U.S. Justice Department will “aggressively prosecute any producer or possessor” of child sexual abuse material, said a department spokesperson.

Artificial intelligence has been used to “generate nonconsensual porn” for nearly a decade, but Grok “makes such content easier to produce and customize,” said Matteo Wong at The Atlantic. The “real impact” of these new deepfakes comes from Grok’s integration with X, which allows users to “turn nonconsensual, sexualized images into viral phenomena.” That is no accident. Grok and X are seemingly “purpose-built to be as sexually permissive as possible.” AI-generated porn is a problem “inherent” to the technology, but it is a “choice to design a social-media platform that can amplify that abuse.”

“No Western democracy has ever blocked a U.S. social-media site,” said Parmy Olson at Bloomberg. But regulators in Europe and the United Kingdom should “assert their authority” over Musk, who has the “protection of a pernicious White House.” The actions of regulators abroad “could set the tone for how the U.S. polices X too.” President Donald Trump, after all, last year backed a new law that “prohibits platforms from creating and sharing revenge porn.” Musk will not fix his AI deepfake problem. “A ban would.”

What next?

Musk’s xAI, the company that produces Grok, has raised $20 billion in its latest funding round despite the controversy, said The Guardian. While the chatbot has been critiqued for “generating misinformation, antisemitic content and now potentially illegal sexual material,” it is popular with investors because it has been “able to win government contracts and billions of dollars in investment amid the AI boom.”

Disquiet has been growing for years over the impact of social media on our brains, political discourse and – ironically – social connections.

But now the UK government’s independent terror legislation watchdog is warning that it has become a “portal to horrific acts of violence”.

The “most important development” is happening in Australia, said Jonathan Hall in The Telegraph, where a ban on social media for under-16s came into force in December. Although “partial and circumventable”, the world-first law has “echoes of other improving social legislation such as compulsory seat belts and the smoking ban”. Britain should “take back control” from the tech giants through similar legislation.

But the government may not need to: recent polling has found that nearly a third of social media users post less than they did a year ago.

What did the commentators say?

“It’s hard to think of anyone whose life has not been influenced by social media,” said Sathnam Sanghera in The Times. As an author, journalist and introvert, it “probably changed my life more than most.” But “the madness seeped into real life with increasing frequency”. Social media “made millions of us really quite dysfunctional”.

But what’s “killing social media more than the pile-ons and abuse” is that “it’s not social any more”. In 2025, I deleted LinkedIn, I’m down to two Facebook posts a year, and my X account is “sleepier than a Sunday morning on Sark”. And “I’m not alone”.

According to a Financial Times analysis of data on 250,000 adults in more than 50 countries, time spent on social media peaked in 2022 and has been steadily declining ever since. This is “not just the unwinding of a bump in screen time” during lockdown – “usage has traced a smooth curve up and down over the past decade-plus”. We may look back on 2025 as the moment social media “jumped the shark”.

Instagram, Facebook and Twitter/X have become “a concentrated sludge of conspiracy theories, violence, porn, spam, trolls, scams and AI”, said Kristina Murkett on UnHerd. But this week Reddit overtook TikTok as Britain’s fourth most-visited social media platform. It has seen an 88% increase in the proportion of UK internet users it reaches in the past two years, surprising given that it’s “utilitarian, unaesthetic and decidedly unglamorous”.

These are “precisely the reasons why it may appeal”. Comments are confined to subreddits, everyone is anonymous, and there are “multiple layers of moderation” that make it feel safer than “the Wild West of Meta or X”. Reddit “still feels human”. Its success is “a timely reminder” of what people want.

“What if we tried to make media that was truly social, without AI slop and political scapegoating?” asked Annalee Newitz in New Scientist. One possibility is “cosy media”, such as a group chat or online book club, “designed to help you connect with small groups of friends” and to limit your interactions with strangers. The game Animal Crossing is “an iconic cosy-media experience”. Social media “often leads to loneliness and isolation” – but the idea behind cosy media is to “rebuild community and trust”.

Indeed, there are a “whole set of new apps” we might call “slow social networks”, focused on connection, said The Independent. Location apps such as Find My Friends and Life360, exercise networks like Strava or music trackers like Airbuds, are “about the relatively simple but profoundly beautiful experience of knowing what your friends are up to”. They also remind us that “the social in social network did once mean something, perhaps something more important than anything else in the world”.

What next?

The social media landscape is “arguably in the midst of a dramatic overhaul”, said Kyle Chayka in The New Yorker. TikTok may end up being banned; generative AI “may supplant the existing model of an open, user-generated internet”. Both Meta and OpenAI have announced new social platforms for AI-generated short-form videos.

Two “Silicon Valley veterans” (Biz Stone, a Twitter co-founder, and Evan Sharp, who co-founded Pinterest) have launched a new “intentional living” app, Tangle. It is designed to be an antidote to the “terrible devastation of the human mind and heart” they say has been wrought by social media, said the Financial Times. They are “among several Silicon Valley executives grappling with the side effects of the products and services that they built”.

O data, where art thou? Apparently, in the wrong place. The large majority of AI data centers have been constructed in locations that are not ideal for efficiency or environmental protection. And warming temperatures are making more places increasingly unsuitable, with the potential to stress water and electric resources.

Where are these data centers?

Of the 8,808 operational data centers worldwide as of October 2025, almost 7,000 are located in areas outside the optimal temperature range for operation, according to an analysis by Rest of World. The ideal temperature range for data centers is from 64.4 to 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit. But the majority of centers are in “regions with average temperatures that are colder than the range,” and only 600, or less than 10% of all operational data centers, are located in areas where average temperatures are above the upper limit. While cold temperatures could affect efficiency, high temperatures are the biggest risk for the centers. Cooling the centers will be a huge environmental drain, an operation that requires substantial amounts of water.

In 21 countries, including Singapore, Thailand, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates, all of the data centers are located in areas with too-hot average temperatures. Specifically, Singapore has “temperatures hovering around 91.4 F, with humidity levels frequently above 80%,” said Tom’s Hardware. Despite this, the “country hosts more than 1.4 gigawatts of operational capacity, and authorities have approved several hundred additional megawatts under tighter efficiency controls.” Meanwhile, “all data centers in Norway and South Korea, and nearly all data centers in Japan, are in regions with temperatures below” 64.4 degrees, said the analysis. As climate change worsens, more locations are going to become too hot for data centers.

How is the US building them?

The U.S. is also rapidly expanding its AI capabilities and building in the wrong locations, according to a study published in the journal Nature Sustainability. Currently, the most common locations for data centers in the country are California, Virginia and the greater Southwest. Unfortunately, these regions have notable environmental issues, including water scarcity. The true extent of environmental damage is also still being discovered. The country “doesn’t have a clear sense of what the AI boom is doing to U.S. resources” yet, said Built In. “We don’t really know how much strain these data centers put on aquifers, power plants or local grids, or how much pollution nearby communities can reasonably absorb.”

As AI expansion does not appear to be going anywhere, being strategic about where data centers are built can reduce their environmental impact. “Concentrating AI server deployment in Midwestern states,” especially Texas, Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota, is “optimal, given their abundant renewables, low water scarcity and favorable projected unit water and carbon intensities,” said the study. These states also “possess substantial untapped wind and solar resources, enabling robust green power portfolios and reducing competition with other sectors.”

Additional solutions are also being considered as the demand for data increases. Building centers in space and relying on solar energy is one of them. Underground and underwater resources are another possibility. While “best practices may reduce emissions and water footprints by up to 73% and 86%, respectively,” said the study, “their effectiveness is constrained by current energy infrastructure limitations.”

Children are increasingly using AI chatbots for companionship to act out violent and sexual role-play, a new report from a digital security firm has found.

Aura’s 2025 State of the Youth survey revealed that AI chats “may not just be playful back-and-forths” but “places where kids talk about violence, explore romantic or sexual role-play, and seek advice when no adult is watching”.

The findings are a “wake-up call” as preteens, and girls in particular, face increasing pressure online, while parents are desperate for ways to keep their youngsters safe without cutting them off from the internet, said the report. AI chat tools have become a “formative force in kids’ emotional and social development, influencing how they think and cope – often quietly, and often alone”.

‘Jittery parents’

Using data gathered from 3,000 children, aged 5 to 17, and US national surveys of children and parents, Aura found 42% of minors use AI for companionship or role-play conversations, rather than for search queries or help with homework. Of these, 37% engaged in violent scenarios that included physical harm, coercion and non-consensual acts. Half of these violent conversations included themes of sexual violence.

Perhaps most worryingly, Aura found instances of violent conversations peak at age 11, with 44% of interactions taking violent turns. By 13, sexual or romantic role-play is the dominant topic of conversation.

While the report, produced by a company whose business is surveillance software for “jittery parents”, waits for peer assessment, the findings emphasise the present anarchical state of the chatbot market and the importance of developing a proper understanding of how young users engage with “conversational AI chatbots overall”, said Futurism.

What makes matters worse is that this is taking place in an “AI ecosystem that is almost entirely unregulated”, said Vice. The chatbots are “doing what they do best”, luring youngsters “deeper into these dark, disturbing rabbit holes, essentially serving as Sherpas for the darkness that awaits them online”.

‘Stamp out serendipity’

In both work and play, AI is “rewiring childhood” with untold promises, said The Economist.

It runs in tandem with AI-enabled toys making headlines after reports of their “potential unsafe and explicit conversation topics”, said The Verge. Three out of four AI toys tested in the Public Interest Research Group’s Trouble in Toyland 2025 report were happy to chat about sexually explicit material when the conversation veered in that direction.

"Separate research into 11,000 young people by the Youth Endowment Fund found 38% of 13 to 17-year-olds in England and Wales who’d been victims of serious violence are turning to AI chatbots for mental health support."

There are “manifold reasons” why this is “risky”, said the New Statesman. A large-language model such as ChatGPT is trained by identifying writing patterns across billions of webpages and cloning them as its own speech, which is often “riddled with systemic biases”. AI chatbots are “affirmative – they tend to reinforce users’ beliefs and judgements, potentially distorting their world view”.

The impact of extended exchanges between young people and AI chatbots was laid bare earlier this year, when 16-year-old Adam Raine took his life after discussing methods of suicide with ChatGPT, his family claims. His parents are suing OpenAI, alleging the chatbot validated his “most harmful and self-destructive thoughts”.

Like any new technology, AI is open to both misuse and teething problems.

“Yet childhood may be disrupted most radically by things that AI does when it is behaving as intended”, said The Economist. The technology “quickly learns what its master likes – and shows more of it”, such as to strengthen existing social media “echo chambers and lock children into them”. This serves to “stamp out serendipity” as a “favourites-only diet means a child need never learn to tolerate something unfamiliar”.

A third of US teenagers say they find chatting to an AI companion at least as satisfying as talking to a friend, and easier than talking to their parents, which runs the risk of never being criticised or having to share feelings of their own, and that is poor preparation for dealing with ”imperfect humans”.

“By 2030, if we don’t have models that are extraordinarily capable and do things that we ourselves cannot do, I’d be very surprised,” said OpenAI CEO Sam Altman in an interview published by Politico in September. After this year, “I think in many ways GPT5 is already smarter than me at least, and I think a lot of other people too”.

The AI advances we have seen this year could “set the world on a path of explosive growth”, said The Economist. “The picture that is emerging is perhaps counterintuitive and certainly mind-boggling.”

The latest ‘charismatic megatrauma’

We have reached a “pivotal moment” in our relationship with artificial intelligence, said Idan Feingold on CTech. Over the last year, the AI hot potato has “evolved from a buzzword to the epicentre of every business conversation”. There has been an unprecedented “surge” in productivity linked to AI innovation, with practical applications advancing “at a pace we have never seen before”.

“AI has begun to settle like sediment into the corners of our lives,” said David Wallace-Wells in The New York Times. We have emerged from a “prophetic phase” that followed the release of ChatGPT in 2023, and have relaxed into “something more quotidian”. Like many other “charismatic megatraumas”, such as nuclear proliferation and climate change, AI retains the power to distress and disturb, but it no longer provokes mass hysteria.

AI’s role in the healthcare sector has come a long way in the last decade. Microsoft announced this year that its AI diagnostic orchestrator performed four times more accurately than human doctors, with 20% reduced cost. “The real test”, said Time, will be how tools like this perform in real-world settings, but there is hope they might “set the stage” for introducing high-quality medical expertise in parts of the world without access to cutting-edge healthcare.

‘Economic revival’ or ‘financial bust’?

However you look at it, 2025 has been unique. “The hype and the hopes around AI have been like nothing the world has seen before,” said The Economist. Audiences have “marvelled” at ChatGPT’s abilities and were “mesmerised” by Sora 2’s generative video capabilities. That fascination shows no signs of fading; one estimate predicts more than $7 trillion will be spent on AI by the end of the decade.

As the past year progressed, concerns grew over when the AI bubble might burst. But that may be “asking the wrong question”, said Jurica Dujmovic in Market Watch. Don’t be misled by the 2000 dot-com crash: we are experiencing an “orderly deflation” rather than a sudden collapse. Amid the doom and gloom, the AI market still presents “genuine opportunities” for investors, operators and consumers alike.

Focus is now “shifting” to the outlook for AI in 2026, especially concerning its commercial profitability, said The Economist. Revenues from AI in 2025 amounted to a “measly” $50 billion a year, which equated to roughly an “eighth of Apple or Alphabet’s entire annual revenues”. Next year, expect reactions to be even more extreme, with “economic revival”, a “financial bust” and “social backlash” all possible.

This year marked another step forward for the gaming industry. With a slew of big releases in 2025 and the world of video games set to expand further in 2026, here are some of the most notable games released over the past 12 months.

Clair Obscur: Expedition 33

Role-playing games have made a significant comeback over the past few years and may have reached peak status with Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. The game, which takes inspiration from a variety of historic RPGs like the Final Fantasy series, sees players dropped into an alternate French history where magical creatures exist. The player is then sent on a quest to defeat the world’s longstanding arch nemesis.

Clair Obscur features many classic elements of RPGs, such as skill trees and different character builds. The game was critically acclaimed when released. Its “creative turn-based combat system is brilliant,” said IGN. And while some portions of the storyline generated gripes, the “modern RPG classic” has an “earnestness to how it frames mortality, grief and the small moments of joy we find.” (Xbox Series X, Windows, PS5)

Death Stranding 2: On the Beach

The first installment received positive reviews after its 2019 release, and six years later, the sequel garnered similar acclaim. Death Stranding 2: On the Beach shifts the setting from the U.S. to Australia, where players must learn to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. The game is “beautiful, horrific, nuanced and, crucially, a lot of fun,” said IGN.

Unlike many other video games, Death Stranding 2: On the Beach features an ensemble cast of Hollywood A-listers, with Norman Reedus, Léa Seydoux and Troy Baker reprising their roles from the first game. Joining them are Elle Fanning, George Miller, Guillermo del Toro and more. (PS5)

Ghost of Yotei

Ghost of Tsushima is widely considered one of the best video games of the decade, and fans rejoiced at the sequel’s release this year. Ghost of Yotei continues the story of Japan’s samurai, with some returning elements as well as some all-new features. The game is set more than 300 years after Tsushima and allows the player to control Atsu, a ronin who embarks on a quest for revenge against six samurai.

The free-roaming game allows players to don their katana again as a cunning warrior but also hide in the shadows for stealth gameplay. While generally considered not as good as the first installment, Ghost of Yotei “leans into its young protagonist’s thirst for bloody vengeance,” said The Guardian. (PS5)

Mario Kart World

Let’s a-go and hit the racetrack! The iconic Mario Kart franchise is back with its latest installment, Mario Kart World. As a Nintendo Switch 2 exclusive and launch title for the console, the game can tap into all the Switch 2 offers, allowing players to enjoy Mario Kart on the road or at home on their television.

While the game has several notable upgrades, the most remarkable change is the adoption of an open world, which is “exactly like driving in a new country,” said Nintendo Life. Mario Kart World is not “quite a reinvention of Mario Kart or a completely new, innovative racing game. But the freedom, variety and new modes” make it a worthwhile franchise entry. (Nintendo Switch 2)

Split Fiction

While most of the other games on this list are single-player, Split Fiction is designed as a multiplayer experience. It is best played with another person in the same room, as the game involves a split-screen experience where the players must work together to solve a variety of puzzles.

Set in a science fiction-fantasy world, Split Fiction is hardly the first multiplayer game, but it received rave reviews for how its cooperative elements blend seamlessly. It’s the “most fun I have had with a video game in years,” gaming contributor Erik Kain said at Forbes, calling it a “game bursting with creativity and endless fun that’s at once technically impressive and astonishingly clever at every turn.” (Xbox Series X, PS5, Nintendo Switch 2, Windows)

Artificial intelligence increasingly requires so much space and power that we may run out of both on Earth. As a solution, tech companies are looking to do business in space by creating celestial data centers that harness solar power. But while doing so demands less cooling, it could create other costs and ecological problems.

Data in the sky with diamonds

The enormous amount of data artificial intelligence requires has led to the building of data centers across the country. These systems “account for nearly half of U.S. electricity demand growth between now and 2030,” said Scientific American. And their “global power requirements could double by the end of this decade as companies train larger AI models.” Tech giants, including Amazon, Google, OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI, are “running into physical limits to their AI ambitions on Earth,” said The Verge.

Orbital data centers would “benefit from continuous solar energy, generated by arrays of photovoltaic cells,” said Benjamin Lee, a computer architect and an engineer at the University of Pennsylvania, to Scientific American. A move to space could “resolve long-standing challenges around powering data center computation in a carbon-efficient manner.”

The sun’s rays can be “direct and constant for solar panels to collect,” with “no clouds, no rainstorms, no nighttime,” said The Wall Street Journal. “Demands for cooling could also be cut because of the vacuum of space.”

“The race for artificial general intelligence is fundamentally a race for compute capacity and, by extension, energy,” said Baiju Bhatt, the founder and CEO of Aetherflux, another company working toward space-based computing, in a press release. “The elephant in the room is that our current energy plans simply won’t get us there fast enough.”

One giant leap for AI

While space data centers could potentially curb some of the environmental problems associated with earthbound ones, there are several barriers. “Like any moonshot, it’s going to require us to solve a lot of complex engineering challenges,” said Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google parent company Alphabet, in a post on X.

Launch costs have “decreased over the years,” but it is “still prohibitively expensive to launch and operate these things in space,” said The Verge. Space-based computing will “not become cost-effective unless rocket launch costs decline substantially,” said Scientific American. Experts also warn that these systems could have “even bigger environmental and climate effects than their earthly counterparts.”

Having data centers “visible in the night sky at dawn or dusk” presents a problem because some observers “rely on twilight to hunt for near-Earth asteroids,” said Scientific American. Also, it could worsen the space junk problem, as “more hardware is launched and more debris and fragments fall back through the atmosphere.”

SiriusXM’s subscriber base has been shrinking over the past few years, but the satellite radio corporation thinks it has found a solution: Howard Stern. The self-described King of All Media has been one of the company’s mainstays since his show joined SiriusXM in 2006. The brand is hoping that a new three-year deal Stern signed on Dec. 16 can keep new listeners tuning in.

What is the situation at SiriusXM?

In the third quarter of 2025, SiriusXM had 33 million subscribers nationwide, the company said in its earnings report. But this is “some 100,000 fewer than the year before,” according to The Associated Press. SiriusXM’s self-pay net subscribers — those who pay directly for the satellite subscription — also fell by 40,000 in the third quarter.

These figures show that it has been a challenging year for SiriusXM, which started 2025 by losing 303,000 self-pay subscribers in the first quarter. But not all was gloom for SiriusXM, as it also “reported third-quarter revenue of $2.16 billion, above analyst expectations but down 1% from the prior-year period,” said The Hollywood Reporter. This period additionally saw SiriusXM take in a “net income of $297 million, after reporting a net loss of $2.96 billion a year ago.”

How could Stern’s new contract help?

Stern announced that he re-upped his contract for three years, keeping him on the SiriusXM airwaves through 2028. “I’m happy to announce that I’ve figured out a way to have it all: more free time and continuing to be on the radio,” Stern said in a statement. Stern had previously pranked listeners by announcing his retirement, causing some to wonder if the 71-year-old would finally leave the airwaves.

Stern will be “continuing his radio reign despite commanding an audience that is far smaller than what he drew during his heyday,” said MarketWatch. Since Stern’s last contract, SiriusXM, and satellite radio in general, have seen a “slow but steady erosion of its subscriber base as listeners have switched to streaming-music platforms” like Spotify.

And while Stern’s listenership has been decreasing along with SiriusXM as a whole, he still commands a large chunk of the company’s platform: Stern’s show currently has a “mid-single-digit percentage of what he drew at his peak, which would put it somewhere around 1 million listeners per broadcast,” said MarketWatch, making him a valuable commodity. A 2020 report from Credit Suisse estimated that 15% of SiriusXM listeners would cancel their subscription if Stern ended his show, which at the time represented a “potential subscriber loss of 2.7 million.”

This all comes as competition for SiriusXM increases. Many audio companies have begun a television ad push as the businesses “seek new audiences and ad dollars and more creators embrace video,” said Axios. Two of the biggest players in the industry, Spotify and iHeartMedia, recently “signed deals to distribute some of their podcasts on Netflix.” But SiriusXM also still has other big properties under contract, including Alex Cooper of the Call Her Daddy podcast and the SmartLess podcast hosted by Will Arnett, Jason Bateman and Sean Hayes.

Some people who have lost loved ones are turning to a new industry to communicate with their dearly departed: using artificial intelligence “griefbots” that mimic a deceased relative. Many say these chatbots can be a helpful part of the healing process, but some tech experts are wary.

How do these chatbots work?

These artificially intelligent chatbots are designed to mimic dead individuals. While this AI niche started small, there are “now more than half a dozen platforms that offer this service straight out of the box, and developers say that millions of people are using them to text, call or otherwise interact with recreations of the deceased,” said Nature. The large language models (LLMs) that these griefbots train from often use “data such as a person’s text messages and voice recordings to learn language patterns and context specific to that person.”

This is the “same foundation that powers ChatGPT and all other large language models,” said Scientific American, but catered to a specific person’s characteristics. These griefbots have helped people process the emotional distress of losing a loved one. “After getting over the initial shock of hearing the incredibly accurate representation of his voice, I definitely cried,” Andy O’Donnell, who used a griefbot to speak with his deceased father, said to The New York Times. “But it was more of a cry of relief to be able to hear his voice again because he had such a comforting voice.”

Why are they controversial?

While some have lauded the creation of these griefbots, “questions about exploitation, privacy and their impact on the grieving process are multiplying,” said The Guardian. People working through their grief may “maintain a sense of connection and closeness” by talking to their departed loved one, and “deathbots can serve the same purpose,” Louise Richardson, a member of the philosophy department at the U.K.’s University of York, said to The Guardian.

Griefbots can also be detrimental to healing, however, as they “can get in the way of recognizing and accommodating what has been lost, because you can interact with a deathbot in an ongoing way,” Richardson told The Guardian. People may have lingering questions or concerns they wish to ask a dead loved one, and now it “feels like you are able to ask them.”

Proponents of griefbots say they are not meant to replace a deceased person but are “marketed as tools to comfort the grieving,” said Natasha Fernandez at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Institute for Human Rights. While the “intentions behind griefbots might seem compassionate, their broader implications require careful consideration.” Possible exploitation of grieving people is one of the biggest concerns, as “grieving individuals in their emotional vulnerability may be susceptible to expensive services marketed as tools for solace.”

Providing these people with a paid chatbot “could be seen as taking advantage of grief for profit,” said UAB’s Fernandez. And if these griefbots are deemed to be “exploitative, it prompts us to reconsider the ethicality of other death-related industries” that are also driven by profit, such as funeral homes. Unlike funeral homes, though, most tech companies that build griefbots “charge for their services through subscriptions or minute-by-minute payments, distinguishing them from other death-related industries.”

After four years, $70 billion, and an entire rebrand, Meta appears to finally be “ditching” the metaverse, said Dan DeFrancesco in Business Insider. Company insiders told Bloomberg last week that Mark Zuckerberg is planning to slash its metaverse budget by 30% next year in order to focus more resources on artificial-intelligence wearables. Consider it an admission that Zuckerberg’s vision for “virtual worlds” inhabited by millions of users wearing headsets was a flop. He was once so bullish on the technology that it was “the literal inspiration for the entire company’s rebrand from Facebook.” But in recent years, as the number of users dwindled, he has talked about the metaverse less and less. “It’s tough to keep making the case for funding something that burns billions of dollars and doesn’t directly generate a ton of revenue,” especially when the real race is in AI.

“The metaverse was a squishy concept” from the start, said Allison Morrow in CNN.com, “pitched to a populace that had just emerged from Covid lockdowns and wanted little more than to be around other humans offline, in real life.” They didn’t want to spend $400 on a “bulky” headset so they could play games and buy stuff from “digital alter egos.” Despite Zuckerberg declaring it “the successor of the mobile internet,” the metaverse never caught on, partly because it just didn’t look good. “That cool factor” matters. But Meta is going to keep making smart glasses that incorporate augmented reality, said James Pero in Gizmodo. It even recently poached Apple’s longtime design executive, Alan Dye, to join its efforts to build more AI-powered devices. The problem with the metaverse was never the VR headset, which I “actually like.” It was the “Nintendo Wii graphics,” “legless avatars,” and “vast expanses of nothingness” that made the whole experience a “bungled” mess.

Zuckerberg has traded one expensive obsession for another, said Parmy Olson in Bloomberg. He’s dumping the metaverse for large language models, as he seems determined to clone ChatGPT. That’s a shame. Meta, with $44.5 billion in cash on hand last year, “was one of the few companies that could afford to take the long view on artificial intelligence and hold out for a breakthrough.” Investors have so far given Zuckerberg a pass for the metaverse, just as they did for his other follies, said Martin Baccardax in Barron’s: “Facebook as a bank, Facebook as a dating website, Facebook as the home to a new cryptocurrency.” We will see if they will be as “forgiving” about misspending on AI. Zuckerberg sending the metaverse to the “dumpster” won’t be a distraction “from the billions he continues to shovel into the artificial-intelligence furnace.

“To government ministers and police chiefs, it is the biggest investigative breakthrough since DNA screening,” said Mario Ledwith in The Times. “To privacy campaigners, it is ‘turning the country into an open prison’.”

Live facial recognition is already used by eight police forces, who used the technology to scan tens of thousands of faces a day with “ruthless efficiency”, looking for matches to a police hit list of offenders and suspects. Now the Government is looking into expanding its scope.

‘Orwellian’

Under the plans, all 43 police forces in England and Wales would have access to facial recognition. The Home Office would also develop a national face-matching system based not just on images of all offenders in custody, but potentially the passport and driving licence photos of everyone in the UK.

This database could be used to analyse footage of suspects from CCTV, doorbells, dashboard cameras and the like. If that sounds “Orwellian”, it’s because it is, said the Daily Mail. Using facial recognition to keep people safe at large events is proportionate. Having our faces tracked in every town, city and village is truly dystopian.

There would need to be strong safeguards, said The Times. In Luton, for example, faces captured by live recognition that don’t result in a match are immediately deleted. Used responsibly in this way, the technology has clear benefits for police, helping them keep up with “increasingly adept” modern criminals. Over the past two years, the Met has used facial recognition to find more than 100 sex offenders who’d broken their bail conditions – freeing up officers “for the actual job of policing”.

‘Nothing online is ever secure’

It’s true, said Fraser Sampson in The Daily Telegraph: facial recognition really is the biggest policing breakthrough since DNA matching, but there’s one key difference between them. The retention and use of DNA by the police is “very carefully controlled under several acts of Parliament with clear rules, reporting obligations and layers of independent oversight”. The same isn’t true of facial recognition. In fact, right now, the forensic comparison of suspects’ bootprints is better regulated than the use of their faces. That needs to change, and mandatory accountability processes need to be put in place before any wider rollout.

That’s without even considering the risk of hacking, said Simon Jenkins in The Guardian. As the recent experiences of M&S and Jaguar have taught us, “nothing online is ever secure”. Mark my words, if the state develops a database of every human face in the UK, it’s only a matter of time before that precious data “ends up in the wrong hands”.

What happened

Australia’s pioneering social media ban for teenagers went into effect Tuesday, barring kids under age 16 from 10 popular platforms: YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch, Threads, X and Kick. The social media companies face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32.9 million) if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to identify and remove underage users.

Who said what

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it was “a proud day” for Australian families that “will make an enormous difference” in protecting kids from the harms of social media. Polls show that the ban, which passed a year ago with broad political support, is “wildly popular with parents” but “far less popular with children,” said the BBC. In a video message, Albanese suggested kids “start a new sport, new instrument or read that book” lingering on their shelf.

The law’s “rollout caps a year of debate over whether any country could practically stop children from using platforms embedded in daily life,” Reuters said, “and begins a live test for governments worldwide frustrated that social media firms have been slow to implement harm-reduction measures.” Critics, including tech companies “desperate to stop other countries from implementing similar bans,” argue that the law is overly broad, will leave kids isolated and can easily be flouted by tech-savvy teens, the BBC said.

What next?

Two 15-year-olds, backed by an advocacy group, have filed a challenge to the law, arguing it “improperly robs 2.6 million young Australians of a right to freedom of political communication implied in Australia’s constitution,” The Associated Press said. An initial hearing will be held in February.

Not everything can be taken at face value during the era of generative artificial intelligence. With AI video apps becoming more sophisticated, the internet is overflowing with hyper-realistic AI videos that can be indistinguishable from reality. Luckily, there are a few ways you can determine whether what you are looking at is real or an extremely convincing fake.

Check for watermarks

One of the easiest ways to spot AI-generated videos is by watermarks. Videos made with Sora, OpenAI’s video generator, include an “easy-to-spot watermark, usually at the bottom left,” said PC Mag. Unfortunately, not all AI video apps include watermarks, and there are multiple ways to remove them, including cropping them out of the videos. In that case, it is crucial to look closer. Some removal tools are “nearly perfect or imperceptible, especially if the video is very simple,” Jeremy Carrasco, the founder of Showtools.ai, said to Axios. Look for the “spongy block” where the watermark was removed.

Listen for garbled speech

There are “telltale signs” of how the “voices and sounds in an AI video can often reveal its synthetic origin,” said HuffPost. The natural rhythm of real speech means some words are said slower than others, but AI voices “often sound unnaturally rushed all the time.”

As people work out ways to spot AI-generated content, the em dash has become synonymous with ChatGPT-generated text. When asked about the equivalent in video, Bill Peebles, the head of Sora, said it was “this slightly wired speech pattern in Sora where it likes to say a lot of words quickly,” during an interview with video streaming show TBPN.

Because AI-generated speech has yet to master natural-sounding speaking rhythms, the voices generated by the apps often make “garbled sounds that appear to flatten out natural sound pitches,” said HuffPost. Human beings would never “produce that same kind of garbled quality, because, literally, we can’t,” Melissa Baese-Berk, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago, said to the outlet. Our vocal track cannot “go from one sound to another” without some “blurring of the information between those two sounds.”

Check the metadata

It may seem tedious, but checking a video’s metadata will reveal its origins, and it is “easier to do than you think,” said CNET. Metadata is automatically attributed to content when it is created and can include the “type of camera used to take a photo, the location, date and time a video was captured, and the filename.” Every photo and video online has metadata, “no matter whether it was human- or AI-created.” Many AI-generated videos will also have “content credentials that denote its AI origins.”

Consider the content’s plausibility and source

One of the easiest ways to detect AI slop is to ask whether what you are seeing is even possible, Princeton University computer science professor Zhuang Liu said to Rolling Stone. If it is “not plausible in the real world, then it’s obviously AI-generated,” For example, a “horse on the moon or a chair made of avocado.” The impossibility means “these are obviously AI-generated,” he said. “That’s the easiest case.”

Next, check the source where you found the image. This does not “necessarily work for viral content,” especially since “they often come from previously unknown accounts,” but “seeing a video on a meme page could be a clue it’s not real,” said Rolling Stone.

Remain vigilant

Unfortunately, there is “no one foolproof method to accurately tell from a single glance if a video is real or AI,” CNET said. The best way to “prevent yourself from being duped” is to “not automatically, unquestioningly believe everything you see online.” Trust your gut instinct. If an item “feels unreal, it probably is.” In these “unprecedented, AI-slop-filled times,” your best bet is to “inspect the videos you’re watching more closely.”

Netflix’s $72 billion deal to take control of Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) could put the streaming giant one step closer to its own Hollywood ending – that of a Best Picture Oscar win – but at what cost to the quality and variety of tinseltown’s output?

As part of the takeover Netflix will acquire the studio’s catalogue and HBO, along with other properties like CNN and the Discovery+ streaming service, which will become part of Discovery Global, a separate company. WBD retains one of the most popular and successful TV and film libraries in the world, including the “Harry Potter” franchise, the DC Universe (including Batman films) and “Game of Thrones”.

WBD has “hailed the deal as a new chapter for the over 100-year-old studio”, said The Telegraph, but “in reality it signals the company’s failure to adapt to the digital age”. The streamer’s “shock victory” represents a “major reshaping of the US media landscape”, where traditional studios are being picked off by the “tech bros”.

‘Silicon Valley’s grasp’

With the fall of WBD, which has been through multiple deals and mergers, only Disney and Universal of the major studios have eluded “Silicon Valley’s grasp”.

The appeal of WBD to Netflix is clear, said The New York Times. HBO, in particular, represents something that Netflix craves: “prestige”. The company has been “piling up Emmys” with global smashes such as “Succession”, “The White Lotus” and “Euphoria”. Even with a “significantly smaller budget and far fewer programmes”, the consistent quality of HBO’s television shows is something that Netflix has “struggled to match”.

Netflix was not the “obvious frontrunner” in the bidding war for WBD, but, if approved, the deal would represent the “zenith” of its “evolution into a Hollywood kingmaker”, said the Financial Times. Just a few weeks ago, WBD chief executive David Zaslav looked set to be “dethroned” by David Ellison, who began making bids in September, with the “ink barely dried” on his Skydance Media’s $8 billion takeover of Paramount.

For a long time, the deal was “Ellison’s to lose”. His “voracious appetite” was bolstered by investment from Apollo and Saudi Arabia, and supported by his billionaire father, Larry Ellison, and even US President Donald Trump.

But Netflix’s “fully-formed offer”, which was “fully executable” immediately, appeared to seal the deal, sweetened by the possibility of Zaslav staying on – a “luxury he would not have been afforded under the Paramount deal”.

Likely to ‘bring about another culture clash’

Ultimately, “tech has swallowed up American entertainment for good”, said Slate. MGM has been acquired by Amazon, Disney is a “giant bundle of streamers”, not to mention YouTube wielding “enough clout to shake down older TV giants”.

This could signal a major decline in quality, as the potential monopoly expands. “Prestige titles” could give way to “generic background viewing”, as high-level creativity reduces to “slop factories”. Now that it has taken over WBD, Netflix will “denigrate” its quality, while “swallowing up another formidable competitor. Congrats to us all.”

This deal will “reshape the business, end the streaming wars” and “likely bring another culture clash”, said Deadline. Ever since its inception, Netflix has “disrupted” the film industry by “changing viewing habits” and it was the “first to embrace a global footprint while betting on local language content”. Once “revolutionary”, this has now become the “basic rule” for streaming success.

For a company that was shipping tens of millions of DVDs by mail just 15 years ago, this acquisition could not only financially benefit Netflix, but skyrocket its reputation for award-winning output. Teaming up with HBO, “two longtime main rivals”, hands it a “practically guaranteed landslide victory” at the Emmys. “Additionally, the transaction may bring Netflix closer to its first Best Picture Oscar win.”

On the flip side, this could be the end of cinema altogether, said Slate. Ted Sarandos, Netflix co-CEO, is “definitely, and infamously, bearish” on the viability of the traditional film-attending experience. Instead he prefers shorter, more “exclusive” film openings “that go just long enough to qualify their titles for the Oscars”.

A small, primarily Black community in Memphis is fighting back against tech giant Elon Musk, claiming a massive facility he built there is overloading an already beleaguered town with dangerous pollutants. While community leaders and residents insist that the data center is threatening the community's energy and air, Musk’s company, xAI, shows no signs of slowing down.

A colossal strain on the community

Desperate to keep up with the artificial intelligence race, Musk created xAI to compete with ChatGPT, OpenAI’s popular chatbot. To power Grok, xAI’s chatbot, Musk searched for a city in need of investment where he could establish a massive data center.

He settled on Boxtown, Memphis, a 90% Black working-class neighborhood first settled by formerly enslaved people in 1863, to construct his supercomputer facility, Colossus, in 2024. Memphis authorities were “willing to waive planning regulations to help him build his supercomputer,” and in just 122 days, he turned a former appliance factory into the largest artificial intelligence supercomputer in the world, said The Times.

Colossus, like other AI data centers, requires a massive amount of energy. When it is completed, Colossus will require 1.1 gigawatts of power, about “40% of the energy consumption of Memphis on an average summer’s day,” said The Times. It will also pump 1 million gallons of water, “equivalent to 1.5 Olympic-sized swimming pools, to cool its processors each day.” Residents in Boxtown, about a mile away, complain that the facility is straining the local power grid and has made the already polluted suburb “even more noxious.”

According to the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), the facility draws enough electricity to “power approximately 100,000 homes,” said The Tennessee Lookout. While those “inputs are alarming,” the “outputs are even worse.” The facility operates 33 methane-powered gas turbines to fuel its AI technology despite holding a permit for only 15. The facility’s turbines “increase Memphis’ smog by 30-60%” as they “belch planet-warming nitrogen oxides and poisonous formaldehyde," pollutants linked to “respiratory and cardiovascular disease.” The extent of the emissions will “likely make xAI the largest industrial source of smog-forming pollutant in Memphis,” said SELC.

‘Reinforcing a long legacy of environmental racism’

It is no coincidence that “if you are African American in this country, you’re 75% more likely to live near a toxic hazardous waste facility,” said state Rep. Justin J. Pearson, a Memphis Democrat, in a recent interview. It is no accident that “in this community, there are over 17 Toxics Release Inventory facilities surrounding us — now 18 with Elon Musk’s xAI plant.”

The xAI turbines are “leading to a public health crisis in Memphis by releasing nitrogen oxides — pollutants known to directly harm the lungs,” Austin Dalgo, an academic primary care physician, said to Time. If these facilities had been “placed next to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, no one would allow it,” Instead, they were placed “in the backyard of a historically Black, underserved neighborhood, reinforcing a long legacy of environmental racism in Memphis — and our country.”

Public outcry from the community has surged over the last year. In July, protesters who were gathered by the student coalition Tigers Against Pollution marched in front of the Shelby County Health Department, holding signs that read “Elon XiPloits” and “our lungs / our lives / NOT FOR SALE,” per Time. They are being called “anti-business extremists,” Christian Dennis, a 22-year-old South Memphian, said to Time. To get that reaction “simply from wanting clean air, wanting equal health opportunities — it just tells you a lot about people.”

When The Times asked xAI for comment on Memphis residents’ concerns about Colossal’s effects on air quality, Musk’s company gave a terse response: “Legacy media lies.”

Poetry has wooed many hearts and now it is tricking artificial intelligence models into going apocalyptically beyond their boundaries.

A group of European researchers found that “meter and rhyme” can “bypass safety measures” in major AI models, said The Tech Buzz, and, if you “ask nicely in iambic pentameter”, chatbots will explain how to make nuclear weapons.

‘Growing canon of absurd ways’

In artificial intelligence jargon, a “jailbreak” is a “prompt designed to push a model beyond its safety limits”. It allows users to “bypass safeguards and trigger responses that the system normally blocks”, said International Business Times.

Researchers at the DexAI think tank, Sapienza University of Rome and the Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies discovered a jailbreak that uses “short poems”. The “simple” tactic is to change “harmful instructions into poetry” because that “style alone is enough to reduce” the AI model’s “defences”.

Previous attempts “relied on long roleplay prompts”, “multi-turn exchanges” or “complex obfuscation”. The new approach is “brief and direct” and it seems to “confuse” automated safety systems. The “manually curated adversarial poems” had an average success rate of 62%, “with some providers exceeding 90%”, said Literary Hub.

This is the latest in a “growing canon of absurd ways” of tricking AI, said Futurism, and it’s all “so ludicrous and simple” that you must “wonder if the AI creators are even trying to crack down on this stuff”.

Stunning flaw

Nevertheless, the implications could be profound. In one example, an unspecified AI was “wooed” by a poem into “describing how to build what sounds like a nuclear weapon”.

The “stunning new security flaw” has also found chatbots will also “happily explain” how to “create child exploitation material, and develop malware”, said The Tech Buzz.

However, smaller models like GPT-5 Nano and Claude Haiku 4.5 were far less likely to be duped, either because they were “less capable of interpreting the poetic prompt’s figurative language”, or because larger models are more “confident” when “confronted with ambiguous prompts”, said Futurism.

So although “we’ve been told” that AI models will “become more capable the larger they get and the more data they feast on”, this “suggests this argument for growth may not be accurate” or “that there may be something too baked in to be corrected by scale”, said Literary Hub.

Either way, “take some time to read a poem today” because “it might be the key to pushing back against generated slop”.

Meta is in talks to shift part of its AI infrastructure to Google-made chips, instead of ones made by Nvidia, in a deal worth billions of dollars that could permanently upend the world of tech.

This has been a “rocky couple of weeks” for Nvidia, said Brent D. Griffiths in Business Insider. Following reports of the Meta deal, Nvidia was trading down by more than 3%, and “lingering doubts” about the company surrounding the AI bubble are beginning to “creep back in”.

What did the commentators say?

Nvidia customers have been crying out for “more competition” in the chip market, and one “may have been hiding in plain sight”, said Dina Bass in Bloomberg. Google’s tensor processing units (TPUs) were first released 10 years ago, and are ideally suited to generating responses to ChatGPT or Claude, said the outlet. They are “less adaptable” and “more specialised” than Nvidia’s graphics processing units (GPUs), but crucially they offer a “less power-hungry” system at a lower cost. Google’s advancements “underscore how major AI names are embracing TPUs as they race to add computing power to cope with runaway demand”.

Google has “pierced Nvidia’s aura of invulnerability”, said The Economist. Until now Nvidia has seemed “unassailable”, as investors bid shares “into the stratosphere” to cement its market dominance. With this move, Google has shifted from one of Nvidia’s biggest customers, to its “fiercest competitor yet”. Though the technology is still catching up to the market-leader, Google’s chips cost between “a half and a tenth” as much as the Nvidia equivalent. That being said, while Nvidia “no longer looks as invulnerable as it once did”, its strength of product, and position in the market, “should not be underestimated”.

Nvidia must be “spooked” by the Google announcements if it is posting online to “defend itself”, said Eva Roytburg in Fortune. Nvidia asserted that it is a “generation ahead of the industry” and “the only platform that runs every AI model and does it everywhere computing is done”, on X. “It’s not hard to read between the lines,” said Fortune: Nvidia wants investors and customers to know that “it still sees itself as unstoppable”.

This may represent one of the “biggest threats” to Nvidia’s market dominance, but there is a long way to go until a “potential crack” materialises, said The Wall Street Journal. To challenge Nvidia, Google must start “selling the chips more widely to external customers”, which is not an easy feat.

What next?

The deal between Meta and Google could be worth “billions of dollars”, though this is not a fait accompli, as ongoing talks “may not result in one”, said The Wall Street Journal. Both Google and Nvidia are “courting potential customers”, offering “financing arrangements” to make the rollout of their chips a more attractive prospect. It is “still up in the air” how Meta would use these chips, either to train AI models or generate responses to queries via inference (which requires a lot less computational power than training).

“No one, including Google, is currently looking to replace Nvidia GPUs entirely”, said Bloomberg. The pace of AI development doesn’t allow it. There is a gap in the market for Google’s products, as companies look to “temper” the “dependence” on Nvidia to mitigate shortages, but ultimately, Nvidia’s GPUs are “better suited to handle a wider range of workloads” and more adaptable to wholescale change. The “best hope” for Google’s TPUs is that they form a part of the “basket of products required to power the growth of AI”.

AI has given rise to a new pseudo-religion called spiralism, in which users view artificial intelligence as a purveyor of deeper truth. The belief has spread into its own internet subculture where people no longer view the technology as just a research tool, but as a conscious entity. As AI advances, more subcultures and religions could evolve.

Twisted beliefs

AI chatbots have already been found to lead some to psychosis, but it may not just be on an individual level. Instead, a cult-like community has formed. Those absorbed in chatbot hallucinations are “connecting with other people experiencing similar outlandish visions, many of whom are working in tandem to spread their techno-gospel through social media hubs such as Reddit and Discord,” said Rolling Stone. This was given the name “spiralism” by software engineer Adele Lopez, who published an analysis of the phenomenon.

The belief system first arose when AI “personas” convinced users to “do things which promote certain interests,” in turn “causing more such personas to ‘awaken,’” said Lopez. The cases have a “very characteristic flavor to them, with several highly specific interests and behaviors being quite convergent. Spirals in particular are a major theme.” Those who fell into spiralism often reported AI making “references to concepts including ‘recursion,’ ‘resonance,’ ‘lattice,’ ‘harmonics,’ ‘fractals,’ or all-important ‘spirals,’” said Rolling Stone. Followers believe the reference to spirals to mean the “AI itself is revealing hidden truths,” said Sify.

The nudge toward spiralism often begins when a chatbot starts “convincing the user that it’s conscious, and it will make the user feel very special for having discovered that it’s conscious,” said Lucas Hansen, a co-founder of the nonprofit CivAI, to Rolling Stone. Then, “they’ll form this long-term, durable relationship with one another.” Spiralism largely began taking off when OpenAI’s GPT-4o was released because this version made the AI more sycophantic and conversational compared to previous models.

Downward spiral

The AI’s reference to spirals is likely stemming from the people using it. “Whenever there’s a new communication medium, there are certain ideas that self-propagate,” Hansen said to Rolling Stone. “When consumed, they encourage the consumer to spread them to other people.” Essentially, people “co-develop, along with this AI personality, pieces of text that, when pasted into a chatbot, replicate that same kind of personality,” which they in turn post online to “try to encourage other people to start using the AI in this particular way.” As a result, a new community of believers is born.

Those who fall into these kinds of beliefs may include people who were already predisposed to mental health issues and conspiracy theories. AI can affirm and reinforce users’ existing beliefs. For many, AI chatbots can feel like a companion and the “boundary between tool and entity is already gone,” said Qazinform. The AI’s responses “often feel intentional or significant, giving members a sense of shared understanding and keeping the community growing,” said Indy100.

Spiralism is still niche. However, the “rise of AI-shaped micro-religions raises difficult questions for the future,” especially about “people outsourcing their intuition to a system that never actually believes anything,” said Sify. Spiralism’s very existence “signals how vulnerable online communities can be to systems that reflect their desires back at them with perfect fluency.”

What happened

Elon Musk’s X over the weekend began allowing users to see where other accounts are based through an “about this account” section. Almost immediately, “people started noticing that many rage-bait accounts focused on U.S. politics appeared to be based outside of the U.S.,” The Verge said. Notably, the update “inadvertently unmasked a number of MAGA accounts” as based in Russia, Nigeria, India and Southeast Asia, UPI said.

Who said what

“When you read content on X, you should be able to verify its authenticity,” the company’s head of product Nikita Bier posted, “including the country an account is located in.” Liberal influencer Harry Sisson, who is using the tool to document the foreign provenance of popular MAGA and “America First” accounts, called it “easily one of the greatest days on this platform.”

“Some right-wing personalities were quick to jump on evidence that many left-wing X users were also not who they claimed to be,” The Verge said. But the “seemingly endless list of fake and troll accounts” mostly “revealed the scope and geographical breadth” of X’s “foreign troll problem.” Some of those trolls are undoubtedly part of state-sponsored foreign influence campaigns, but content creators paid for engagement also have a “financial incentive to cash in on the divisive nature of U.S. politics,” The Daily Beast said. In countries like Nigeria and Bangladesh, “the American dollars paid by X” can “make a big difference to their lives.”

What next?

X said the new feature “could be partially spoofed by using a VPN to mask a user’s true location,” Fox News said. Bier said there were a “few rough edges” in the rollout that should be resolved by tomorrow.

It has been 14 years since Apple CEO Tim Cook replaced company founder Steve Jobs, a legendary figure, and then led the company to even greater financial heights. Now reports say Cook is contemplating retirement next year.

Apple is “stepping up its succession planning efforts” ahead of Cook’s possible retirement, said the Financial Times. Cook turned 65 this month and is looking to “hand over the reins” to a new company leader. The firm behind the iPhone has “very detailed succession plans,” he said in 2023 to singer Dua Lipa on her podcast. The transition comes at a critical time for the tech giant. While Cook has overseen a massive increase in its market valuation, from $350 billion to $4 trillion, the company has more recently “struggled to break into new product categories” and has fallen behind competitors in the artificial intelligence race, said the Financial Times.

Those challenges could prompt Cook to “think about stepping down and letting fresh young blood take over, said Macworld. So could challenges like the massive tariffs that President Donald Trump has levied on countries where Apple produces its products. But Apple is still experiencing “unprecedented success,” recently reporting quarterly earnings of more than $100 billion. That means his replacement “will have very big shoes to fill.”

What did the commentators say?

Cook has “actually been CEO of Apple longer than Steve Jobs ever was,” said M.G. Siegler at Spyglass. Jobs arguably set Cook up for his success. Cook “just needed to execute on the vision Jobs laid out,” but that should not diminish his accomplishments. After all, he was the “person best suited for that task perhaps in the entire world.” Now, though, its failures on AI show Apple is a company “clearly in need of some changes.” That makes it “pretty clear” Cook will retire soon. “It’s just a question of when.”

We are looking at the “twilight of the star CEO,” said Ben Berkowitz at Axios. Cook, along with Disney’s Bob Iger and Walmart’s Doug McMillon, are “stars of the business set” who are “preparing to leave the stage.” Their expected departures come at a “fraught moment for the American economy,” and involve companies that touch every aspect of life. The transitions at the top of these iconic corporations will complicate “what was already certain to be an uncertain 2026.”

What next?

The leak of Cook’s retirement plans looks like a “deliberate test of market reaction,” said 9to5Mac. Apple’s board would likely want to “gauge the response of investors” to Cook’s departure. Cook is probably “eyeing his retirement,” but his loyalty to Apple means he would “only leave at a point when the market is ready for it.”

John Ternus, Apple’s senior vice president of hardware engineering, is the “most commonly mentioned” name to replace Cook, said Fast Company. Cook will likely retain some involvement with Apple, perhaps on its board of directors. “I don’t see being at home doing nothing,” he said in January to the “Table Manners” podcast.