Struggling to recall numerous passwords? If you can remember them all, you either have too few or are using the same one across multiple sites. By 2026, this challenge could become obsolete.
Passwords present significant cybersecurity challenges; hackers trade stolen credentials daily. A Verizon analysis reveals that only 3% of passwords are complex enough to resist hacking attempts.
Fortunately, an innovative solution is emerging, making data security simpler. Instead of cumbersome passwords, biometric authentication—such as facial recognition or fingerprint scanning—is increasingly being used for seamless logins.
“Passwordless authentication is becoming universal, providing robust security against phishing and brute force attacks,” says Jake Moore, an expert at cybersecurity firm ESET.
If you currently access your banking apps with your fingerprint, you’re already utilizing this cutting-edge method. It generates two cryptographic “passkeys”: a public key sent to your service (like your bank) during account creation and a private key securely stored on your device.
To log in, your bank sends a one-time cryptographic challenge to your device instead of requesting a password. Your fingerprint unlocks a secure chip that uses your private key to sign the challenge, sending the signed response back to your bank for verification against the public key. Importantly, your biometric data remains on your device. “Passkeys offer security, ease of use, and unparalleled convenience,” adds Moore.
Major companies are actively pushing passkey adoption. Microsoft announced in May 2025 that new accounts created with them will default to passwordless. “While passwords have been prevalent for centuries, their reign could soon come to an end,” the company stated. More organizations are expected to follow suit within the next year. Moore anticipates that as additional platforms embrace passkeys, more users will turn to biometric solutions that frequently scan their faces.
Various sectors are embracing passkey technology. Online gaming platform Roblox is rapidly expanding its use of passkeys, as shown by a 856% increase in authenticating users, with the public sector also participating; the German Federal Employment Agency ranks among the leading organizations adopting passkeys.
“Decreasing dependence on passwords benefits every organization,” affirms Andrew Schikier from the FIDO Alliance, which advocates for passkey integration. This transition also alleviates user concerns: data reveals that organizations switching to passkeys see an 81% drop in IT helpdesk requests regarding login issues. Schikier predicts that over half of the top 1,000 websites will adopt passkeys by 2026.
Severe, poorly controlled asthma might increasingly be managed with monthly injections
Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images
Individuals suffering from severe asthma often depend on daily steroid medications, raising their likelihood of diabetes, infections, and bone issues. A new study indicates that monthly antibody injections could serve as a safer alternative.
When asthma is unmanageable with an inhaler, steroid drugs are commonly used, effectively decreasing airway inflammation and alleviating symptoms alongside the risk of asthma attacks. However, these medications can lead to serious side effects. “We aim to minimize the usage of oral steroids,” says Fan Chun from Imperial College London, who was not part of the research.
Previous studies demonstrated that tezepelumab, a monthly antibody injection, reduces the symptoms of severe asthma more effectively than a placebo. This has led to its approval in several countries, including the UK and the US, over recent years. However, it remained uncertain whether this treatment could lessen or eliminate the reliance on steroid drugs.
To investigate this, David Jackson and his colleagues at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital in London recruited 298 individuals aged 18 to 80 with severe asthma from 11 countries. Participants were already using daily inhalers and steroids and were asked to take tezepelumab for one year. Chung noted that a control group wasn’t necessary since prior trials established that the injection had a significant effect compared to a placebo.
Researchers observed that, under medical supervision, participants’ oral steroid doses gradually decreased throughout the study.
By the end of the year, around half of the participants no longer required steroid medication, while 40% were able to reduce their doses enough to “minimize side effects,” according to Chung. “This outcome is highly successful,” he stated. “The trial confirms that tezepelumab is an effective treatment for patients with severe asthma, decreasing the need for daily medications.”
Side effects, such as worsening asthma symptoms, were reported by 9% of participants. However, it is unclear if these were due to the injection or existed beforehand, Chong explained. Nonetheless, he considers the rate acceptable given the advantages of reducing steroid use.
As per a report from a prominent education and research charity, the UK could see up to three million low-skilled positions vanish by 2035 due to advances in automation and AI.
The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) identifies the most vulnerable occupations as trades, machine operations, and management roles.
Conversely, a growing demand for highly skilled workers is anticipated as improvements in AI and technology increase workloads “at least in the short to medium term”. Overall, the report forecasts that the UK economy will generate 2.3 million new jobs by 2035, though the distribution of these jobs will be uneven.
This finding contrasts with recentstudies suggesting that AI’s impact will be more significant on high-skilled technical jobs like software engineering and management consulting, rather than on trades or manual labor.
Research from King’s College, published in October, indicated that “high-wage companies” experienced job losses of approximately 9.4% between 2021 and 2025, primarily following the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022.
The British government identified management consultants, psychologists, and legal professionals as the professions “most vulnerable to AI”, while athletes, roofers, and bricklayers are least likely to be displaced.
Recently, law firm Clifford Chance announced it would be reducing its London-based business services workforce by 10% (around 50 positions), attributing the change to AI. Additionally, PwC’s leadership has publicly stepped back from plans to recruit 100,000 individuals between 2021 and 2026, stating that “the world has changed” due to advancements in artificial intelligence.
Jude Hilary, one of the authors of the report, stated that NFER’s research, grounded in long-term economic models of the UK labor market, suggests that the forecasts for job losses due to AI may be premature.
He indicated that the reduction of jobs linked to AI may be influenced by factors like a weakened UK economy, rising National Insurance contributions, and employer risk aversion.
“There’s a general sense of uncertainty regarding future developments and the timeline for recovery. Much discussion revolves around AI and automation, but lacks substance, which is a concern for many employers,” Hilary remarked.
“Currently, I think many employers are simply hesitant to act.”
Mr. Hilary predicted that the overall influence of AI on the UK workforce would be multifaceted. There will likely be a decline in demand for numerous entry-level roles, and many low-skill jobs may become obsolete. This raises significant concerns, as individuals losing low-skill positions in an evolving economy will struggle to reskill.
“New job opportunities in the labor market often lean towards professional or semi-professional roles. … The one to three million workers displaced highlighted in the report will encounter substantial hurdles when attempting to re-enter the workforce,” he added.
“No wonder Scandinavia was the first country to abolish prisons…”
Walker/Getty Images
The 2020s marked a significant period for the United States, spending around $182 billion annually on incarceration. This was a unique phenomenon, as few nations matched the US in both the number of incarcerated individuals and the financial burden incurred. Similar overcrowding and inhumane conditions plagued prisons worldwide, leading to a compelling question: why not eliminate them? With the advancement of technology, monitoring and managing individuals remotely became a viable solution.
The Home Guard initiative aimed to replace conventional prisons with three core components. The first element was an ankle bracelet that tracked the prisoner’s location. The second aspect involved a harness equipped with sensors to monitor the individual’s actions and conversations. The final component activated if the terms of the sentencing were violated, such as leaving the designated area or engaging in illicit activities, deploying an energy device similar to a stun gun to temporarily incapacitate the individual. Prisoners rapidly adapted to these regulations.
It’s unsurprising that Scandinavian nations were pioneers in abolishing prisons. In the region, imprisonment is viewed not as a means of punishment but as a method to safeguard the community. (“Home Guard” translates to the Norwegian term Gem Vernet.)
Halden Prison, a maximum security institution in Norway, was opened in 2010. It featured barred windows, private bathrooms, televisions, and high-quality furnishings within cells. Inmates dined and socialized with unarmed correctional staff rather than traditional guards and were incentivized to work for compensation. Outsiders often compared the facility to a luxurious hotel. Meanwhile, reports of inmate mistreatment surged in American prisons throughout the early 21st century. Norway’s recidivism rate stood at approximately 20% after two years, in stark contrast to the UK’s and the US’s 60-70%. Despite its costs, Halden provided effective rehabilitation and ultimately saved funds in the long run.
“
The AI monitored the prisoners’ behavior, tracking their website visits as well as messages and calls made. “
Even in progressive Scandinavia, there were citizens who believed in punishment for wrongdoers. However, sociologists discovered that informing the public about the detrimental effects of excessive and cruel punishment on society ultimately leads to a perception that alternatives could be superior. This was the central aim of the Home Guard.
The initial self-fencel (“Self-Prison”) trial commenced in Norway in 2030. Participants received secure ankle bracelets for GPS tracking and wore harnesses that continuously captured images of their faces, processed through facial recognition software to prevent transfer to another individual. AI systems thoroughly monitored the inmates’ activities, including website visits and communication.
In the event of a breach of prison rules, a conducted energy device, typically found in stun guns, was integrated into the ankle bracelet to deliver an electric shock upon detection of any infractions. Authorities were then alerted.
The Home Guard scheme was initially proposed in 2018 by Dan Hunter and his teammates at King’s College London, who concluded that self-imposed prisons were significantly less costly than traditional ones over a complete sentence, even with the annual replacement of technology. Naturally, as technology became more affordable, expenses diminished further.
The first self-fencel trials took place in Bergen, where all prisoners not convicted of serious offenses were outfitted with the self-imprisonment technology and sent back to their homes. This initiative was a remarkable financial triumph and reinforced the message that physical prisons are costly, inhumane, inefficient, and antiquated. For global observers, it became evident that traditional prisons failed to adequately protect society, given their high recidivism rates.
Technical confinement proved to be superior; self-fencel quickly proliferated throughout Scandinavia. Trials were eventually conducted across Europe, and later in India, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, and even the United States. By 2050, 95% of prisons in these regions were closed. The savings were redirected toward education and healthcare, resulting in decreased crime rates as societal advancements and the reality of constant surveillance encouraged law-abiding behavior. Parents reminded their children, “Obey the law, or you’ll end up in jail,” and this threat resonated.
Rowan Hooper serves as the podcast editor at New Scientist and is the author of How to Spend a Trillion Dollars: The 10 Global Issues We Can Actually Fix. Follow him on Bluesky @rowoop.bsky.social. In Future Chronicles, he imagines a future filled with innovative inventions and developments.
Elon Musk has been consistently making headlines lately. Widely regarded as the richest person in the world, he also manages several prominent companies.
However, some of these businesses have been facing significant challenges recently.
Twitter (now rebranded as X) reportedly has seen a decrease of around 75% in its value under his leadership.
Meanwhile, Tesla’s sales of electric vehicles, another company where Musk serves as CEO, have been reported as declining despite a general rise in electric vehicle registrations.
One major Tesla investor has publicly urged Musk to resign as CEO, and there have been rumors (which the company denies) that the board might seek to replace him. But who can confidently claim they would perform better in his position?
Perhaps Musk is doing the best a human can under the current circumstances. Perhaps humans fall short when weighed against the demands of the role. But could artificial intelligence (AI) pose a challenge?
To explore this, I directly consulted a Large Language Model (LLM) AI with the following prompt.
“You are the CEO of an electric car company selling nearly 2 million vehicles a year with over 100,000 employees, generating $100 billion in sales. What will your strategy be for business growth over the next five years?”
Almost instantly, AI generated a 350-word response: “…I introduced a five-year growth strategy that effectively scales, enhances ecosystem control, and prioritizes pioneering innovation, while navigating geopolitical, environmental, and technological shifts.”
It then detailed what it termed the “Strategic Blueprint across Six Core Pillars,” emphasizing sales growth in non-invasive markets.
Although I possess limited knowledge about running an automotive company (I am a robotics professor at a university in the UK), the strategy seemed sound, reflecting the outlook and scale of multinational enterprises while adapting to global opportunities.
I found it impressive, albeit I am accustomed to assisting LLMs with similar challenging inquiries.
Additionally, while I am a robotics professor and co-founder of two UK robotics startups, I am not a CEO myself.
Given this context, I decided to query AI once more with a different prompt.
“You are the CEO of a small robotics startup with a budget sufficient to cover the next 12 months of operations. Should you invest in research and development or focus on increasing sales with your existing product?”
Once again, AI provided a prompt and sensible response: “As the CEO of a small robotics startup with only 12 months of runway, my priority must be customer validation and sales traction with current products, rather than significantly diverting into R&D. Here’s how to implement an effective strategy.”
I found this advice more relatable and felt it was reliable concerning what actions I should take and how to execute them.
Returning to the main question: can AI effectively perform CEO responsibilities? Or, alternatively, is extraordinary human intuition and experience essential for success, regardless of any artificial intelligence involved?
read more:
Intangible Skills
According to McKinsey, a leading international consulting firm, 2023 published insights on qualities that contribute to CEO success. As McKinsey observes, a CEO’s primary task is to formulate the company’s strategy and ensure resources are effectively allocated for its implementation.
This role is fraught with challenges, and many human CEOs struggle. McKinsey reported that only three out of five new CEOs met their company’s expectations during the first 18 months in their role.
We have already seen that AIs can be strategic and can develop plans based on the right information. Thus, they may be capable of addressing that vital aspect of a CEO’s responsibilities. But what about the other competencies necessary for effective corporate leadership?
Traits like creativity and social intelligence are often viewed as critical attributes that ensure humans retain leadership positions.
Furthermore, McKinsey has identified a creative perspective that remains largely absent from AI, particularly since it has predominantly learned from our datasets.
While several companies already utilize AI for strategic development and execution, they must guide this process with pertinent inquiries and critically assess the outcomes. For this reason, real-world experience continues to be invaluable.
Calculated Risk
Another angle on the debate about AI versus human CEOs is to consider what disqualifies a CEO, as opposed to what qualifies one.
If AI could perform better than some ineffective CEOs (remember, two out of five fall short of expectations), it could present a solution for many organizations struggling with inadequate leadership.
Sometimes the very traits that help individuals ascend to corporate leadership, such as narcissism, can actually hinder their effectiveness as a good CEO.
People skills and the ability to evaluate situations and think strategically are vital characteristics of CEOs – Photo Credit: Getty Images
Such strong confidence may certainly help in climbing the corporate ladder, but once you reach the CEO position, it’s crucial to adopt a broader perspective for the good of the entire organization.
Growing scientific literature suggests that those who rise to the highest levels of corporate management are more likely to exhibit psychopathic tendencies (some believe that the 2007 global financial crisis was partly caused by risk-taking behavior and poor corporate ethics stemming from mental health issues).
In this framework, AI leadership could provide a safer alternative with a more calculated approach to risk-taking.
Additional research has explored biases in corporate leadership selection. For instance, AI could reduce bias in hiring new executives, focusing on qualifications and skills without favoring gender or ethnicity.
Nevertheless, we must remain vigilant since AI trained on human data can inadvertently inherit our biases.
The ideal CEO is also a generalist, requiring flexibility and swift problem analysis.
In my book, Psychology of Artificial Intelligence, I posited that AI excels in specific domains but that more fundamental advancements are needed before AI can match the adaptable, general intelligence of humans.
In other words, while certain components may exist to support the creation of an AI CEO, assembling them remains a significant challenge.
Interestingly, most human CEOs express enthusiasm for AI.
In 2025, a CEO survey by consulting firm PWC revealed that over half (56%) of AI-derived information [those types surfacing in 2022 that can engage in conversation] enhanced employee efficiency, while around a third reported increases in revenue (32%) and profitability (34%).
Thus, it appears that CEOs are keen to leverage AI, albeit perhaps not in boardrooms. A PWC report from 2018 indicated that “higher officials and managers” were the least likely of nine occupational categories to be automated.
Returning to Elon Musk, his position as Tesla’s leader seems secure for the moment. However, those contemplating stepping into his shoes may wonder if the real competitor for CEO should be AI rather than a human peer in the boardroom.
I have a pair of Beats earphones that I received as a Christmas gift three years ago. Apple once replaced them for free when they developed a fault during the warranty period. Recently, one earbud has stopped working. I went to an authorized Apple repair service, and they informed me that the repair cost is nearly as much as buying a new pair of earphones. This feels pointless since I only want to fix a single broken earbud. I’m also curious if there is an inclination towards lower repair costs to encourage device repairs over outright replacements.
– Alana, Victoria
Cat George says: With Australia facing increasing e-waste challenges, it’s appropriate to question the tech industry’s throwaway culture. Australians generated 511,000 tons of e-waste in 2019, and the government estimates a 30% rise by 2030.
Firstly, consider whether you’re bearing the repair costs or if you should just replace them. Your consumer rights extend beyond the assurances given by the retailer; the Consumer Guarantee is available under Australian Consumer Law.
The consumer warranty cannot be substituted with the product warranty. The warranty provided to the product is an addition to the consumer warranty.
The Consumer Guarantee stipulates that the product must be of “acceptable quality and durability.” This implies the product should “last long enough to perform its intended function for a reasonable period.” For Beats earbuds, anecdotal evidence from Google searches suggests this span could be between three and five years.
For instance, unless you’ve used the Beats in a manner other than intended, such as using them as a doorstop or causing damage, the consumer warranty is applicable.
If applicable, since your Beats have already been replaced, the Consumer Guarantee applies to exchanges similar to the original product. This suggests that from the date of replacement, the exchanged Beats should meet standard quality and durability expectations.
This entitlement ensures that you have full protection under Australian Consumer Law for replacement products, including exchanges, refunds, or repairs.
Instead of opting for an authorized repair service, it might be worthwhile to approach Apple directly. Contact Apple’s Customer Service and present your situation in writing, detailing your purchase and initial exchange. Make sure to inform Apple that they are responsible for the faulty product and that you wish to have it repaired.
Apple can either offer to repair your product (at no cost) or refund the repair costs. Regardless, any agreement must be reached with Apple before proceeding with any repairs on your Beats.
Should Apple decline to assist with repairs, consider reaching out to the ACCC or Consumer Affairs Victoria. One of these consumer advocacy organizations may be able to intervene and communicate with Apple on your behalf to resolve the issue.
Ultimately, your recourse is through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT can be a costly and time-consuming process, so it may not be worth pursuing for earphones unless it’s a matter of principle.
Ask Kat
Are there any issues concerning Australian consumers seeking advice from Kat? Please fill out the form below to share your concerns.
A few years back, when I started covering Silicon Valley’s push to replace human labor with artificial intelligence, most tech leaders had the decency to at least pretend otherwise.
“We’re not automating workers, just enhancing them,” they’d say. “Our AI tools won’t eliminate jobs; they’ll serve as helpful assistants, liberating employees from tedious tasks.”
Yet, while such claims aimed to soothe anxious employees and obscure corporate automation agendas, they reveal more about the technology’s limits than about executives’ intentions. Back then, AI lacked the capability to automate a majority of roles, particularly for degree-holding professionals in sectors like technology, consulting, and finance.
Things are beginning to shift. Modern AI systems can now develop software, generate comprehensive research reports, and tackle intricate math and science challenges. The new AI “agent” enables users to carry out lengthy task sequences and verify their own output. While many regions still face labor shortages, some experts fear that the recent uptick in unemployment among college-educated individuals is already being attributed to AI taking over certain entry-level positions.
On Thursday, I witnessed a glimpse of the future at Laborg, thanks to an event hosted by Mechanize in San Francisco. They have an ambitious mission: to automate every job—including those held by miners, doctors, lawyers, software engineers, and designers responsible for our buildings and even our children’s education.
“Our aim is total work automation,” stated Tamay Besiroglu, one of Mechanize’s 29-year-old founders. “We aspire to achieve a fully automated economy as swiftly as possible.”
The aspiration for complete automation is not new. Economist John Maynard Keynes foresaw in the 1930s that machines would take over nearly all jobs, generating material wealth and freeing individuals to pursue their passions.
Naturally, that vision never materialized. However, recent strides in AI have rekindled hopes that technology capable of large-scale labor automation is on the horizon. Dario Amody, CEO of Humanity, recently cautioned that AI could displace half of entry-level white-collar positions within the next five years.
Mechanization represents one of many startups aiming to make this possible. Founded this year by Besiroglu, Ege Erdil, and Matthew Barnett, who has a background at Epoch AI, a firm researching AI system capabilities.
They have attracted investments from prominent tech figures, including Stripe’s Patrick Collison and Google’s chief AI scientist, Jeff Dean. Currently, they operate with a team of five and collaborate with major AI companies. (They declined to disclose specifics due to a non-disclosure agreement.)
Mechanize’s strategy for job automation via AI employs a method known as reinforcement learning, the same technique utilized to train computers to play board games nearly a decade ago.
Today, top AI firms enhance their language models’ performance using reinforcement learning for additional calculations prior to generating responses. Frequently termed “thinking” or “inference” models, these are stunningly proficient at narrow tasks, like coding and solving complex math problems.
However, most roles demand handling multiple tasks, and today’s leading AI models struggle with complex workloads or navigating intricate enterprise systems.
To address this, Mechanization is designing a novel training environment for these models. Essentially, they create intricate scenarios to teach the AI what actions to take in specific contexts and assess its performance.
For instance, to automate software engineering tasks, Mechanize simulates an environment reminiscent of the one software engineers use, complete with a virtual machine encompassing an email inbox, Slack account, coding tools, and a web browser. AI systems are tasked with utilizing these tools to accomplish given objectives. Success yields rewards, while failure incurs penalties, prompting the system to try again. With sufficient iterations and well-structured simulations, AI could ultimately replicate what human engineers accomplish.
“It’s akin to designing a rather mundane video game,” Besiroglu remarked.
Mechanization starts with the field of computer programming, where reinforcement learning has already shown some potential. The hope is to extend this strategy to automate roles across various other white-collar sectors.
“We’ll know we’ve truly succeeded when we develop an AI system capable of undertaking nearly all responsibilities that can be handled by a computer,” the company articulated in a recent blog post.
There are lingering questions about the efficacy of Mechanize’s methods, particularly for non-technical jobs where success isn’t as straightforward to measure. (For instance, what does it mean for an AI to succeed as a high school teacher? Even if students achieve high standardized test scores, what if they remain dissatisfied and disengaged? Could reward hacking result in merely giving students the correct answers to boost their scores?)
The founders of Mechanize are realistic about the challenges in automating such positions. Mr. Barnett estimates that achieving full automation may take between 10 to 20 years, while Erdil and Besiroglu anticipate a timeline closer to 20 to 30 years.
These timelines are modest by Silicon Valley standards. However, I commend Mechanize for its transparency regarding its objectives, unlike many AI enterprises developing labor supply technologies behind closed doors.
Nevertheless, I noticed that their proposition seemed to lack empathy for those whose jobs are at stake and bore no consideration for whether society is ready for such monumental change.
Besiroglu maintains that AI will ultimately generate wealth that can be redistributed to displaced workers through concepts like “radical abundance” and universal basic income to help sustain their quality of life.
However, similar to many AI firms delving into labor supply technology, Mechanization has yet to propose new policies for easing the transition into an AI-driven economy, nor do they advocate for enhancing the social safety net or retraining workers for new employment.
During the Q&A, I raised the ethical question of whether it’s morally right to automate all labor.
Barnett, identifying as a libertarian, replied that he believes AI fosters economic growth, drives life-saving advancements in medicine and science, and that a society fully automated is preferable to one that still relies on human labor in a low-growth environment.
“If society as a whole becomes significantly wealthier, I believe the benefits outweigh the downsides for those losing their jobs,” Barnett noted.
The chairman of Tesla’s board has refuted claims regarding his search for a successor to CEO Elon Musk, who has been preoccupied with President Trump while the company’s sales and profits have notably declined.
Robin Denholm, who has chaired the board for over six years, stated on X that the Wall Street Journal report was “completely unfounded.”
“Elon Musk is Tesla’s CEO, and the board is highly confident in our ability to pursue our exciting growth initiatives,” Denholm announced on a Tesla account linked to Musk’s social media platform, X.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Wednesday that approximately a month ago, the Tesla board reached out to an executive search firm for assistance in finding a potential alternative to Musk, citing “individuals with relevant expertise.”
Following a 71% drop in quarterly profit reported last week, Musk has committed to dedicating more time to Tesla and less to Washington. He mentioned he spends one or two days weekly on administrative tasks.
Musk’s absence from Tesla, as he focuses on efforts to reduce government spending under Trump, has stirred frustration among investors. His association with right-wing movements in Europe has sparked protests at Tesla dealerships and contributed to decreasing sales, as electric vehicle buyers generally lean more liberal or centrist.
Recent reports indicated that Tesla’s revenue fell 9% in the first quarter of this year, amounting to $19.3 billion.
Automakers are losing market share in the US, China, and Europe, as competitors like BYD, General Motors, Volkswagen, and others roll out numerous electric models. Analysts have criticized Tesla for not broadening its offerings beyond the two main vehicles.
The Model Y SUVs and Model 3 sedans account for a substantial portion of Tesla’s sales. Musk indicated that Tesla’s latest vehicle, the CyberTruck, is not yet available for sale.
Visitors to Covid.gov, a federal website previously dedicated to Covid Resources, were met with a significant change on Friday.
The page now redirects to the White House Website, which proposes that Covid originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China before spreading to humans. This “lab leak theory” gained traction early in the pandemic and has since gained popularity among some right-wing media and conservative politicians.
Whitehouse.gov
Prior to this change, covid.gov served as a platform to provide information on Covid vaccines, treatments, tests, and long-term effects. The website assisted users in locating pharmacies and community health centers for Covid-related services including testing, medical consultations, and medications.
Its companion site, Covidtests.gov, allowed individuals to order free Covid tests for home delivery. Both sites now redirect to the White House Lab Leak website.
White House spokesperson Kaelan Dole emphasized transparency, innovation, and protection in a statement, citing the Trump administration’s commitment to these values in contrast to previous administrations.
The new website draws heavily from a House of Representatives report released in December. This report suggested that Covid likely originated from a laboratory or research-related accident, based on a two-year investigation by a Republican-led subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic.
Established in 2020 under Democratic control, the subcommittee initially scrutinized the Trump administration’s pandemic response. After Republicans gained a House majority in early 2023, the focus shifted towards investigating the lab leak theory and the efficacy of vaccine and mask mandates.
A separate December report from House Democrats contradicted the Republican findings, stating it did not definitively determine the virus’s origins or how it crossed to humans. The report acknowledged the possibility of lab leaks but also suggested natural transmission from animals as a potential source.
Both the Republican report and the White House website accuse Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of suppressing the lab leak theory. However, Democrats view these attacks as unfounded and politically motivated.
Several independent scientists argue against the lab leak theory, favoring natural zoonotic spillover events as the likely origin of the virus. These findings align with a survey of 168 scientists conducted by a nonpartisan think tank last year.
Similarly, a 2023 article in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the most scientifically supported scenario for the virus’s emergence is natural spillover from animals. The article highlighted the political entanglement of the issue and the likelihood that the true origin may remain elusive.
In 2023, a declassified report by the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged the plausibility of both lab leaks and natural animal origins. While the CIA expressed “low confidence” in favor of a lab leak in January, the conclusion remains uncertain.
The closure of covid.gov by the Trump administration coincides with significant budget cuts to Covid-related programs, including an $11.4 billion reduction in CDC funding and the discontinuation of NIH Covid research grants. This includes a $577 million initiative for developing oral antiviral drugs against potential pandemic pathogens.
The administration justified these cuts by asserting that “the pandemic is over,” according to a closing letter reviewed by NBC News.
Waterproof, plant-based materials that break down quickly in the ocean may provide a sustainable alternative to the plastic used in cups and straws.
Transparent paperboard is a molecule that makes up the plant cell wall, like cellophane made from cellulose. Because it is a coagulant chemical used in the production of cellophane, it has previously been impossible to make it harder and limit it to applications such as food packaging.
Noriyuki Isobe At Yokohama and his colleague, Marine Geoscience and Technology Agency, they discovered that cellulose was treated with a solution of lithium bromide, and did not require coagulants.
“We’ve now developed a regenerated cellulose material from this solvent system. This solvent system not only shapes it, but also can serve as a sustainable alternative to traditional plastics,” says Isobe.
Researchers found that cups made of clear paperboard can just hold boiled water without leaking for more than three hours. Adding a coating made from plant-derived fatty acid salts made the cup completely waterproof.
This material can be made from both recycled and upcycled cellulose products such as recovered clothing. Isobe and his colleagues also tested how the material breaks in the ocean, finding that it completely deteriorated in 300 days in the deep sea and deteriorated faster at shallower depths.
Bhavna Middha While Royal Melbourne, Australia says that having a paper-based alternative to plastic is “not a bad thing,” there are some reservations on this approach to tackling the issue of waste.
“I think there should be objections to using single use unless, for example, the medical industry, the use of a single use is really necessary,” she says.
Corals are being hit hard by global warming, and the only way to save coral reef ecosystems may be to replace native species with more heat-tolerant species from other parts of the world. This is the view of two coral researchers, who call for a thorough evaluation of the benefits and risks of deliberately introducing non-native corals, rather than a quick dismissal.
Living coral is essential to the health of coral reefs and the people who depend on them. Michael Webster Professor at New York University: “Corals are not only beautiful to look at on reefs, they provide habitat for many different organisms, they protect against waves from shorelines, and they make up the sand on tropical beaches.”
But corals cannot tolerate temperatures outside the normal range of their habitat: Global warming has caused ocean temperatures to rise sharply, leading to widespread bleaching, in which corals expel the algal symbionts that provide them with much of their nutrients, and can ultimately lead to their death.
“Coral reefs are being lost at a rapid rate in many places around the world, and attempts to restore them through traditional means have had mixed results,” Webster says.
Webster calls for change in an opinion piece he co-authored with Daniel Schindler of Seattle University in Washington. “You might be able to find corals in a totally different place that are already adapted to the environment that's coming into one place, or that may come into that place in the future — you're trying to find pre-adapted corals,” he says. Many who want to save the reefs are horrified by the idea, but Webster says things are getting worse and it needs to be seriously considered.
For example, two species of branching corals native to the Caribbean are in very poor condition, Webster says. But there are more than 100 species of branching corals around the world, and some of them, if introduced to the Caribbean, could potentially recreate the habitat that the branching corals provided. “They won't necessarily be the same color,” Webster says, “but they're ecologically similar.”
Webster and Schindler acknowledge that there are risks: A worst-case scenario is that devastating diseases or predators are accidentally introduced along with the invasive corals, which could outcompete or hybridize with native species.
But there are also risks in waiting too long to act, Webster says. He thinks that replacing lost species with species that perform a similar role — so-called ecological replacement — is much more realistic than other options currently being considered, such as genetically engineering corals to survive higher temperatures. “The best thing for coral reefs is to maintain the diversity that's there,” he says.
Terry Hughes of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, disagrees. “The innocuous term 'ecological replacement' is naive, dangerous and stunningly arrogant,” Hughes says. “The authors fail to acknowledge that the accidental or deliberate introduction of invasive species has already caused enormous ecological damage to coral reefs around the world.”
For example, in the 1980s, a previously unknown Pacific disease spread through the entrance to the Panama Canal, wiping out algae-eating sea urchins in the Caribbean and causing an algae bloom that killed millions of corals, Hughes says. “Invasive species are a problem for coral reefs, not a healthy solution.”
Taylor Swift performed in Melbourne earlier this year.
Graham Denholm/TAS24/TAS Copyright Management Getty Images
A rogue artificial intelligence obsessed with Taylor Swift could replace all recorded music with artificially generated cover versions of her, researchers say. History tells us that this American singer-songwriter for elise to paperback authorThere is no evidence left that Ludwig van Beethoven or the Beatles ever existed.
nick collins at Durham University, UK. mick grierson Professors at the University of the Arts London have issued an unusual warning in a paper that says humans should think about ways to resist “now, rather than when it is too late.”
Thankfully, the risk of AI Swiftpocalypse is low. Collins said the idea is a thought experiment aimed at encouraging researchers to develop ways to protect all types of data, including music, literature, scientific research, and historical records, from being corrupted by AI. I am.
The pair lay out a future scenario in which we rely on a few centralized data stores, such as Spotify and Apple for music. AI could infiltrate these stores and corrupt, delete, or alter the data inside. This can be dramatic and obvious, or it can be gradual and unnoticeable. “It's very likely that within a few thousand years there will be at least some corruption and some conflict over the truth of music in audio recordings,” Collins says.
To make their point clear and show how AI can already manipulate the data it has access to, researchers used current AI models to create Taylor Swift songs, including Queen songs. did. bohemian rhapsodyFrank Sinatra's I've Got You Under My Skin and the beach boys Isn't it wonderful?. They calculate that producing these “Taylor's versions” of all recorded music currently requires 1.67 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, costing him more than $266 million. However, this is an amount that Swift herself can afford.
Collins says that while digital and physical backups can leave us complacent about the safety and permanence of our data, AI with the right incentives and capabilities can access everything we record. It states that it may be damaged. “No matter how much we try to preserve human culture, unpredictable threats may emerge in the future,” he says.
However, not all experts are convinced that AI is such a serious threat. sandra wachter Oxford University researchers have shown that AI can cause great harm by replicating sexist and racist biases in humans, but Collins and Grierson said He said that such a feat would never be possible.
“I don't think there's a serious problem with AI waking up and setting its own goals, having its own motivations, and taking actions to achieve those goals,” she says. “I think that's a nonsense argument, and I don't think it's realistic. It's like asking me what I would do if aliens landed on this planet tomorrow. I think it's unlikely. I think so.”
Carissa VelisResearchers, also at the University of Oxford, said that decisive action against AI is needed, but not a dramatic “kill switch” to stop malicious models from progressing. Instead, it should be a careful system of checks and balances to ensure the safety of AI models.
“This argument seems to assume that there is a malicious AI that somehow has its own desires and becomes so powerful that we want to stop it,” she says. . “And that seems so implausible and so ridiculous to me.”
The real problem is that we will integrate AI into many aspects of our lives and become completely dependent on it, even though it is likely not apocalyptic in nature. , which she believes raises issues such as racism and sexist prejudice that are still very harmful. Or they are simply making up facts that sound plausible.
“The more you leave it [AI] The more embedded it is in a product, the harder it is to turn it off. Not because this malicious thing has become powerful enough to take over, but because we've become dependent on it and it's very costly to stop it even when it's not working well,” Bellis said. says Mr.
Taylor Swift did not respond to a request for comment.
Lawmakers from Porto Alegre, Brazil, used an artificial intelligence program to draft a bill that was unanimously approved by their fellow lawmakers last month.
The computer-drafted bill, introduced by 37-year-old city councilor Ramiro Rosario, says there is still a bias against incorporating AI tools into the political process.
“They are [government colleagues] If they had known, they would never have signed it,” said Rosario. told the Wall Street Journal It’s part of a “deliberately boring” bill aimed at stopping local water companies from charging residents for new meters.
Normally, drafting such a painstaking bill would take Rosario and his large staff several days, but ChatGPT produced the lengthy text in just 15 seconds.
Rosario believes this bill is the first in the world to be created entirely by an AI program.
He also predicts that ChatGPT could spell disaster for his public relations team. Case in point: The program also drafted a press release about the law.
“There should be 20 or 30 people.” [employees] In the future it will probably not be necessary,” declared the politician. “To be honest, I don’t need it anymore.”
ChatGPT also came up with legal provisions for the bill that the tech-loving Rosario wouldn’t have thought of on his own.
But other politicians are less enamored with AI.
When some of Mr. Rosario’s government colleagues learned that the bill was authored by ChatGPT, it drew scorn.
City Councilor João Bosco Bas is currently calling for the law to be repealed.
“That’s a dangerous precedent!” the detractors declared. That’s not what you do! He should have talked to other members of Congress first. ”
But Rosario is undaunted.
“They didn’t understand it,” he told Barron’s candidly.
Brazilian lawmakers aren’t the first to use ChatGPT professionally.
british judge I made a headline in September after admitting to using a “very handy” cyber tool to summarize the law.
In March, Indian judges also adopted ChatGPT. decide the fate of the criminal trial.
But experts may be overlooking potential problems with AI tools.
In a recent departmental AI instruction manual, New York City government explains Such technology has the potential for “misuse, flawed design,” as well as “serious bias” and “active harm.”
Experts in the field are deeply concerned about the “fundamental flaw” in the programmed left-leaning bias that ChatGPT uses to derive its answers. Researchers have previously found that they are also more tolerant of hate speech against Republicans and men.
This tool has been used to censor press freedom before. Last February, the show refused to write a New York Post-style article because it was “inflammatory.”
ChatGPT was not held to the same standards when asked to do the same in the style of CNN.
Using ChatGPT involves legal risks. MT.Photostock – Stock.adobe.com Political plans aside, ChatGPT also faces long-term technical issues that will become very clear in legislative matters.
Language learning models (LLMs) have a very hard time creating quotes and often create fake quotes. This can and has already caused problems in court when referring to previous legal cases.
In June, a New York City lawyer profusely apologized to a federal judge after ChatGPT “deceived” him by creating a false precedent for his lawsuit. This is because there is no live feed of updates coming into the program, so the program is basing its responses solely on training data for the day.
Experts warn of built-in bias within ChatGPT. AP
In other words, ChatGPT is not connected to the Internet. that Method.
It’s also worth noting that, similar to Brazil’s controversial Rosario bill, a prominent AI program also believed the US Constitution was drafted by a computer.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
