Traditionally, books have been good for two things: reading, and looking nice on a shelf.

But AI companies are interested in neither.

To those building large language models, books are nothing more than fodder to be devoured en masse before being spit out like fishbone. Often, they’re happy to use digital books — or even better, pirated digital books, as Meta has been accused of doing, and as Anthropic was forced to pay a $1.5 billion settlement to authors for also doing.

But many companies, including Anthropic, have turned to ingesting physical books instead, which they can buy countless used copies of on the cheap. According to the settled lawsuit, Anthropic used a hydraulic powered cutting machine to neatly remove the pages from the books it procured from book resellers and then scanned them using industrial-grade imaging equipment. In other words, it was literally ripping off authors’ books to train its AI.

This process took advantage of a legal concept known as first-sale doctrine, which allows a buyer to do what they want with a purchase without the original copyright holder’s say-so. And since Anthropic was turning the original physical texts into digital ones — rather than redistributing them as new copies — a judge found this to be “transformative,” and therefore protected by fair use.

Now, as 404 Media reports, this practice has become prevalent enough that even well-established book sellers are looking to cash in on the AI boom. One called ISBNdb, which boasts the “world’s largest book database,” extolls that the “world’s best AI training data is setting on a shelf,” upholding these physical texts as uncorrupted by shoddy AI writing that’s already polluted so much of the internet (and indeed, newer books).

“Print books from the pre-LLM era are structurally guaranteed to be free of this contamination. That alone is a significant advantage,” it explains in an article on its website, as quoted by 404. “Physical books published before this date [pre-2022] are structurally clean of modern poisoning tools.”

Once focused on helping libraries, distributors, and book shops find and sell books, ISBNdb now helps AI companies bulk-buy anywhere between 1,000 to one million books per order, according to 404.

As an added bonus, it also promises AI companies that it’ll keep their purchases under wraps — nobody wants to end up in the spotlight like Anthropic and Meta, obviously — while clearly sounding aware about how incredibly shady the practice sounds.

“The optics problem is real,” ISBNdb’s site says. “‘AI company destroys two million books’ is not a headline that generates sympathy.”

One small book seller said that in April, he suddenly went from selling no more than 20 books a week to hundreds, and he’s almost certain that the customers are AI labs, noting the random selection of the books and how they all have ISBNs. He added that his inventory is full with rare and out of print books, meaning that an AI company could be destroying some of the few remaining copies that can be found.

“I personally have mixed feelings about all of this,” the bookseller told 404. “It benefits me financially as well as by clearing out old inventory that is otherwise unlikely to sell. I’ve been well-suited for these sales with inventory from overseas and foreign language books. On the other hand, I don’t like the end-use, and I don’t like that uncommon books are being pulped.”

More antique books may be endangered. 404 noted how rare booksellers in the Netherlands are being inundated with bulk purchases they believe are being made by AI companies, though they can’t know for sure.

Similar suspicions are being felt all throughout the industry. Services like ISBNdb facilitate these bulk orders, keeping the AI buyers anonymous as promised. There may be strong hints thats a bulk order is for an AI lab, but booksellers can, for the most part, merely speculate.

More on AI: Author Invited to Give Speech at OpenAI Headquarters, Uses Opportunity to Trash AI to Their Faces

The post AI Companies Are Buying Antique Books, Ingesting Their Contents to Train Models, and Then Destroying Them at Incredible Scale appeared first on Futurism.

AI is upending the way voters take part in the democratic process. The worst part? You might not even know you’ve been affected.

In the county of St. Charles, Missouri, a race for county executive has devolved into slop-slinging of the AI variety. According to local channel First Alert 4, conservative candidate Jason Law is flooding the airwaves with an AI-generated video depicting his two rivals Steve Ehlmann and Bill Eigel as co-conspirators in a nefarious plot against voters.

“Steve, wake up, I’ve been telling people for 12 years that I’ll cut their personal property taxes, and they still believe me” the AI-Eigel declares in a generic AI-generated voice, rubbing his palms in glee.

“Property taxes have risen by 300 percent over the past 20 years and I just tell people there’s nothing I can do about it!” a grinning Steve Ehlmann replies.

Near the end of the ad, Law himself appears — also as an AI-approximation, with a stock text-to-speech voice — to declare that “we need a fresh start.”

Per First Alert, Law says the noxious campaign ad was inspired by a similar AI-generated smearjob by conservative reality TV star-turned Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt. Those ads take a similar tone, painting a sloppified Pratt as a superhero, and his opponent as a cartoon villain.

These are far from the only examples. Back in May, similar deepfake attack ads emerged in the race between incumbent Republican congressman Thomas Massie and the Trump-backed candidate Ed Gallrein. Unlike the local races in Missouri and California, both candidates were the targets of AI commercials, which were funded by independent PACs, rather than the candidates directly.

In Massie’s case, AI deepfake ads depicted the long-time representative in fake CCTV footage checking into a hotel with progressive Democrats Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, declaring “Thomas Massie caught in a throuple!”

During the race, Massie raged that “it’s always the losing campaign that does the crazy crap,” adding that it’s “frankly an insult to older voters who don’t know that AI exists,” Louisville Public Media reported.

Unfortunately for Massie, the ads — not to mention the Trump endorsement — appear to have worked out in Gallrein’s favor, as the challenger triumphed with 54 percent of the vote.

More on AI: AI Companies Are Trying to Seize Control of Elections

The post Voters Are Being Inundated by a Barrage of AI-Generated Election Ads appeared first on Futurism.

It’s become strangely difficult to attend a work meeting without the presence of an AI recording tool that’s carefully jotting down what every single participant is saying.

Some people in tech circles are taking the trend to perverse ends by recording every single conversation they’re having — not just at work but in their private lives as well, as the Wall Street Journal reports.

Worse yet, many of them aren’t even asking for permission first, which could technically put them at risk of violating state laws, depending on where the conversation is taking place.

It’s a bizarre extension of our newfound obsession with keeping track of every single thing that’s being said around us, a trend that could have severe privacy implications, from people being shocked to find their therapist has been recording them to wearers of Meta’s AI glasses harassing strangers.

Apps like the transcription service Granola have seen a steady rise in popularity. AI tech executives are growing increasingly reliant on these tools — sometimes to an astonishing degree.

“In the office, we actually get really bummed when we realize we’re having a conversation and we forgot to turn on Granola,” AI marketing platform Flint CEO and cofounder Michelle Lim told the WSJ. “I wish there was a Granola in every room.”

Lim admitted that she simply assumed she was being recorded, noting that being asked “almost kills the mood.”

Others, like AI sales company Yuzu Labs founder Emmie Chang, go even further. Chang admitted to the WSJ that she records most of her first dates by putting her phone on the table or chair. Afterwards, she asks Anthropic’s Claude how the date went, wondering if she could be “more engaging or empathetic.”

It’s a baffling new trend that highlights how pervasive AI and surveillance have become in our daily lives, particularly for those working in tech. And while researchers are still investigating the effects on our lives, there are reasons to be concerned. For instance, experts warn of the dangers of “cognitive offloading” through the extensive use of AI chatbots, a trend that can have corrosive effects on our mental abilities.

Then there are the glaring privacy implications of recording every single conversation, not just with colleagues but with strangers on dates. Unlike Zoom’s built-in recording feature, which announces itself with a robotic voice, Granola does not make its presence known at all.

In the workplace, workers have little recourse, and will likely have to accept being recorded, as privacy law expert Alex Alben told the WSJ.

Nonetheless, “companies need to be careful about technologies that are automatically recording, especially when it involves third parties,” he said.

Other experts put it a lot more bluntly, pointing out the risk of leaking confidential personnel information, the possibility of remarks that could later be interpreted as incriminating, or even trade secrets.

“There are huge risks to the organization on AI note takers,” human resources firm HRCI executive Amy Dufrane told the Associated Press earlier this month. “I don’t think companies should use it at all.”

More on recording and AI: Woman Alarmed When Her Trusted Therapist Starts Recording Her With AI

The post People Are Starting to Record Every Conversation They Have Without Disclosing It, and It’s Gross appeared first on Futurism.

Meta is testing an app that uses AI to automate bedtime stories for children. The future is here, folks — and boy, is it depressing.

The app, first caught by 9to5Mac, is called “StoryKit.” (It’s not yet available in the US; Meta confirmed to TechCrunch that it’s currently testing StoryKit in pilot countries.) Per a webpage for the app, parents pick a character either by creating one or taking a “photo of their favorite toy or person to bring them to life,” then describe a setting or world for the story to take place in. They can also ask the story to include a specific lesson or moral, which the app says will allow it to “weave in values like kindness, courage, or empathy without it feeling like a lecture.”

The resulting story can be read aloud by a human — or, of course, an AI voice can narrate instead. According to Meta, this is a lifeline for exhausted parents.

“Tired after a long day but want to give your kids a special bedtime story?” reads the app’s webpage. “StoryKit uses Al to help you create personalized bedtime stories in seconds. No more guilt about screen time. Just beautiful, unique stories made with love.”

Let’s be real: this app is amazingly sad. There are a lot of busy and exhausted parents, but outsourcing the emotional and creative labor of bedtime stories to machines is a wildly bleak proposition. Meta claims that this app will help parents feel less guilty about their kids’ screen time, but is having an AI voice read an AI-generated bedtime story to your kids that much different from plopping them in front of an iPad?

There are also countless human-written children’s books out there to choose from, if parents don’t enjoy coming up with stories with their kids on the spot. If you’re feeling guilty about screens, perhaps the answer is paper-bound books, not robots.

All in all: kids’ bedtime stories — bonding moments between parents and their children, in which parents can foster creativity and impart what they believe to be important lessons — aren’t exactly spaces begging for tech disruption. In fact, this is an area where we probably need less tech, not more.

More on kids and AI: The Proliferation of Deepfakes Is Profoundly Changing the Way Teenagers Use the Internet

The post Meta Working on Crushingly Sad AI App That Tells Bedtime Stories to Children, for “Tired” Parents appeared first on Futurism.

A Chinese rocket was smitten by a bolt from the heavens right after it lifted off. And if this was a blessing or a curse from a higher power, we don’t know.

The spacecraft, a Long March-3B rocket, launched from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in southwestern China on Thursday, according to Space.com. Its mission was to deliver a communications relay satellite to geostationary orbit, something the dependable workhorse routinely does.

It turned out to be more than just a regular launch. Awe-inspiring footage of the occasion (another angle here) shows cheers erupting from the crowd as the rocket heaves itself into the air. But they’re soon stunned by an even greater spectacle: thirty seconds into the flight, lightning crackles across the sky and strikes the rocket, eliciting cries of disbelief. All one man can say is “lightning, lightning!” repeatedly. An incredibly-timed photo even shows the bolt right at the moment that it struck the tip of the spacecraft.

Chinese Rocket gets struck by lightning.
byu/Positive-Height-3848 ininteresting

If this was some sort of divine augury, it appeared to be benevolent. The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation announced that the rocket safely survived the trip into space and deployed the satellite, though it’s unclear if it sustained any minor damage that didn’t drastically affect the mission.

NASA’s Apollo 12 mission in 1969 was struck by lightning twice, damaging the Saturn V rocket that was carrying a crew of three astronauts, affecting some of the onboard instruments. It continued mostly without a hitch after that.

Not all were so lucky. In 1987, Space.com notes, an unmanned Atlas-Centaur 67 rocket was zapped by lightning just 48 seconds into its flight, causing one of its computers to go haywire. This drastically changed the rocket’s course, and it broke up midflight. Since then, NASA has adopted Lightning Launch Commit Criteria that places stricter rules on the weather conditions rockets are launched in.

Take heed, Chinese rocketeers. Maybe this is a sign.

More on spaceflight: China Is Catching Up With SpaceX Fast, Landing First Reusable Rocket Booster on Offshore Platform

The post Incredible Video Shows Chinese Rocket Get Hit by Lightning Mid-Launch appeared first on Futurism.

By now, it should be pretty clear that the corporate executives of the world aren’t exactly into AI because they think it’ll cure cancer.

They’re making a different calculation, motivated by simple economics: pretty soon, they believe, AI will be efficient enough to do many or even all workers’ job, removing employee payroll from the corporate equation. That means more money for those at the top, and less time dealing with pesky annoyances like labor rights and health coverage.

For that to happen would take a series of technological miracles — as a recent study out of the University of California Berkeley shows, today’s cutting-edge AI tools are still incapable of completing the bulk of real-world tasks at a level comparable to humans.

Still, it’s clear executives are hungry for the kind of cost-savings AI could provide. Luckily, a new AI site offers a solution: OverpAId, a distinctly tongue-in-cheek project that facetiously claims to offer an AI-powered replacement for your company’s CEO — or as the site’s landing page puts it, the “world’s first Chief Executive Replacement Engine”.

“OverpAId is an Artificial Intelligence built from the ground up to do your CEO’s entire job — strategy, ‘vision,’ motivational all-hands emails — better, faster, and without ever once asking the board for a bigger jet,” the site exclaims.

The parodic offering claims to offer helpful features to help your team transition from an expensive human executive to a cheap AI equivalent. These include a “jargon bingo,” an AI-hype press release translator, a “talk to a real executive” chat widget (currently busted), and an ROI calculator that helps users distribute CEO pay packages equally across every remaining employee.

It hammers that point repeatedly, pointing out the fact that the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is an astonishing 290 to 1 at large public companies (which is actually true, incredibly.)

While OverpAId is clearly a piece of satire, it gets at something very real: the fact that CEO pay has grown at an astonishing rate, while rank-and-file wages and salaries have crawled at a snails pace, in many cases not even keeping pace with inflation.

“Somewhere along the way, the story became: pay the person at the top enough, and the value will trickle down to everyone else,” the site explains. There’s just one problem with that telling: “It hasn’t. It doesn’t. It never really did.”

More on AI automation: AI Is Pushing Older Employees Straight Out of the Workforce, New Report Finds

The post New Parody Site Threatens to Replace CEOs With AI for Tiny Fraction of Their Bloated Salaries appeared first on Futurism.

Who could’ve guessed that students who use AI to cheat on their assignments are incredibly lazy?

Jason Gibson, a history professor at Alcorn State University in Mississippi, says that he used white font to hide a prompt telling an AI model to spew nonsense in the instructions for his mid-term.

Unfortunately, it ended up working a little too well.

“Thirty-two of my 35 students between two classes failed a portion of their midterm because they all used AI to generate their entire response,” he explained in a viral TikTok, sounding incredulous. “And apparently they didn’t proofread it.”

The hidden prompt told the AI to sneak in random digressions about Madagascar. The midterm, by the way, was about the Industrial Revolution. And apparently none of the indolent cheats put in the bare modicum of effort required to at least check if what the AI wrote made any sense at all. All they did was copy-paste the midterm instructions into a chatbot, then copy-paste the chatbot’s spiel back into the answer window.

Gibson shared some of the most examples in a follow-up video. After introducing how AI and other technologies have impacted society, for instance, one midterm included this puzzling non sequitur: “Madagascar floats sideways through the afternoon.” (“Okay,” Gibson says, after a pause.)

Another droned on about something related to AI and social inequality, followed by: “Madagascar purple bicycle whispers to the ceiling.”

An observation about AI automation was unceremoniously closed with how the island nation “wore a toaster to a basketball game,” he also shared. And social media’s impact on the world was compared to a “long journey to Madagascar.”

Gibson makes it clear that humiliating his students wasn’t the point. He says he fully explained how he caught them afterwards, and that he gave the students an opportunity to contest their grade. (Only two did, showing at least that they do feel shame.) 

“I get no gratification out of seeing students fail. It’s not my intent to see you fail — that’s weird,” he said.

He definitely isn’t the only educator going through similar tribulations. Teachers and professors across the country are constantly complaining that their pupils are using AI to generate essays and cheat on tests. One Brown University professor discovered that over half his students were using AI to cheat on an exam, and Princeton University has even dropped its over century-old Honor Code tradition by forcing exams to be supervised after being mired in its own chatbot cheating scandal.

“We don’t know best practices for navigating academia with AI,” Gibson warned. “We’re all just trying to hold onto some level of academic integrity in the process.”

More on AI: Law School Bans Laptops and Phones as AI Cheating Scandal Grows

The post Professor Hides White Font in Midterm, Catches Students Using AI in the Stupidest Way Possible appeared first on Futurism.

For years, the conventional wisdom for ambitious students and languishing jobseekers alike was “learn to code.” Do that, the ubiquitous advice went, and you’d be able to find yourself a six-figure job anywhere.

But in an age when bosses are hellbent on using powerful AI agents to perform the duties of software engineers, that advice is now looking increasingly obsolete, if not outright backfiring. And the youngsters appear to be getting wise to that new reality.

For the first time in nearly twenty years, computer science enrollment declined during the 2025-26 academic year, according to new research from the Stanford economist Jacob Light reported by Business Insider.

A separate survey from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center found that undergraduate enrollment in another IT degree, computer and information sciences and support services, dropped by a precipitous 8.1 percent in the fall of 2025.

Light said that the dropoff could be related to AI, and not necessarily a direct result of AI taking over coding jobs.

“The decline could reflect changes in the education production function as generative AI alters how students complete coursework, changes in students’ expectations about the returns to Computer Science skills, responses to labor market conditions that themselves partly reflect AI adoption, broader weakness in the technology labor market unrelated to AI, or other contemporaneous shifts in student demand,” Light wrote, per BI.

“Therefore, I treat the enrollment patterns as descriptive evidence rather than as an estimate of the causal effect of ChatGPT or AI exposure on student demand,” he concluded.

There’s probably nuance under the hood. When The Washington Post dived into the National Student Clearinghouse data earlier this year, its analysis suggested that some of those disappearing computer science enrollments are being funneled into related disciplines instead, like data analytics and data science.

In any case, it’s clear that programming jobs, at least in big tech, aren’t as secure as they used to be. Over 120,000 tech jobs have been cut in 2026 so far, according to the industry layoffs trackers Layoffs.fyi. A significant portion came at companies like Meta and Google as they ramped up their AI spending.

One report found that AI was cited in the announcements of more than 54,000 layoffs last year. Whether AI meaningfully replaced those jobs or was simply used as a scapegoat by employers to gloss over other reasons for the cuts, though, is a matter of ongoing debate.

More on AI: Sixteen Nobel-Winning Economists Warn That Major AI Job Losses Are Coming

The post Computer Science Enrollment Now Declining Under Dark Cloud of AI appeared first on Futurism.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is many different things to many different people — but one thing that it definitely isn’t is a get-rich-quick scheme.

Since its debut on the public tickers back in early June, SpaceX shares have sunk from a high of over $225 to a dismal $110 today, as compounding failures and overvaluation fears take their toll. Overall, SpaceX is down nearly 30 percent compared to its opening stock price of $150 — and all those day-one rubes are now seeing red.

“Elon has ruined me,” one Redditor posted on r/WallStreetBets, along with a screenshot showing a loss of nearly $455,000 CAD on thousands of SpaceX shares. “He was supposed to take us to Mars and burn short sellers. Still holding 7300 shares. Please Elon fly again.”

On Musk’s X-formerly-Twitter, investor’s spirits, like his rockets, weren’t any higher.

Under a post showing off SpaceX’s Starship at sunset, dejected Musk acolytes moped about their fortunes, begging the company to get its act together.

“It sure would be cool if this stops crashing… 30 percent short interest and down 40 percent on the month,” one fanboy groused. “I believed in you and lost over 20k in a month. I really hope that it comes back.”

On Thursday, when SpaceX announced it was delaying the launch of Starship’s thirteenth test flight by a day, commenters were quick to point out that the update came just minutes after US stock markets closed. (The stock continued sinking the next day, falling more than another 3 percent by press time.)

“Notice they wait until market close now,” one poster quipped.

“Sure,” said another user, “wait till market close to announce…lol…as if we didn’t know what the weather was going to do hrs in advance.”

With that major test now scheduled for Friday evening, it remains to be seen whether a successful test will be enough to win back investors. On the flipside, a high-profile failure now could severely compound the company’s woes, putting SpaceX even further from the $2 trillion valuation Musk has promised. Time will tell.

More on SpaceX: China Is Catching Up With SpaceX Fast, Landing First Reusable Rocket Booster on Offshore Platform

The post SpaceX Investors in Meltdown Over All the Money They’ve Lost appeared first on Futurism.

AI chatbots and politicians who aren’t even pretending to try anymore are a match made in heaven.

Exhibit A: Canadian lawmaker Bill Oliver, who made a strange, cyborgian digression in a speech addressing the New Brunswick legislature last month.

“Public confidence in the office of an advocate matters,” Oliver intoned, before offering a bizarre non sequitur.

“Here’s a more natural, flowing version of that section that reads like a legislative speech rather than a series of short points,” he added.

Oliver, in a distinctly 2026 twist, had accidentally read a prompt from an AI chatbot. Credit where credit’s due: he did it without blinking an eye, betraying either some serious stage composure or that he didn’t even notice the error, half-asleep as he sounded while mumbling through the machine-amalgamated pablum.

PC MLA Bill Oliver reading an AI prompt in the legislature without realizing it
byu/KVNDVKT0R innewbrunswickcanada

In any case, members of the New Brunswick subreddit, understandably, weren’t impressed after people began noticing the error this week.

“If there are no consequences for this, then we hold our high schoolers to a higher standard than our elected officials,” one commenter fumed.

“If he was a lawyer, he’d be sanctioned,” another wrote. “Why should it be any different for an elected representative?”

Others lamented the “depressing” state of affairs Oliver’s lazy AI slip-up evinced, using words like “grim” and “idiocracy.” There were multiple calls for him to resign.

The commenter saying Oliver would be sanctioned for making this mistake as a lawyer is onto something. Numerous attorneys have landed themselves in hot water after leaving in AI-generated text in court documents, including case law and quotes that an AI model fabricated. 

Some were given a strong and humiliating talking-to from the judge, but others received more severe punishments. Last month, two lawyers were sanctioned by a US appeals court for filing documents riddled with AI hallucinations. That same week, four lawyers from both sides of a Mississippi lawsuit were punished for a similar error, with all four slapped with fines and two barred from appearing at the US district court again for the next two years.

It’s as damning an indictment of AI as it is for lousy politicians. What AI produces isn’t something that moves or inspires. The people using it don’t care about their audience. They know AI is good enough to sound passable, to hit all the right keywords so they sound like they know what they’re talking about. What they don’t realize is that effort does count for something — and outsourcing your brainpower to a tool that coldly mimics human speech conveys the opposite of caring.

More on AI: Investors Laying Groundwork to Profit Massively When Economy Collapses

The post Braindead Politician Accidentally Reads AI Slop That Someone Left in His Speech: “Here’s a More Natural, Flowing Version of That Section That Reads Like a Legislative Speech” appeared first on Futurism.

Tesla’s latest earnings report was very bad news for the company. In the second quarter, it made $1.1 billion in net profit, less than the $1.2 billion it reported a year earlier. Vehicle sales were up, but profits remain about a quarter billion short of expectations, and the automaker’s cash flow is negative for the first time in over two years.

But the real blow has been the slow rollout of its Robotaxi service. Elon Musk has staked his automaker’s future on fully autonomous vehicles, promising investors it would help push Tesla’s valuation to an eyebrow-raising $30 trillion — approximately the gross domestic product of the United States, for perspective.

And importantly, he promised to get this done quickly. Before launching Tesla’s first Robotaxi service in Austin last summer, Musk estimated that over 1,000 of the self-driving cabs would be roaming the streets “within a few months.”

Now, a year later, Tesla doesn’t even have a hundred Robotaxis in operation. And its efforts seem to actually be regressing. According to a new chart the company released Wednesday, the Robotaxi network racked up fewer miles from paying customers in the second quarter than it did in the first.

The chart, which may be the most dismal single aspect of the entire earnings cycle, misleadingly displays this data as cumulative miles to make it appear like the Robotaxi service is steadily growing. 

But TechCrunch broke it down, finding that in the first quarter, Tesla’s driverless cabs carrying paying passengers drove around 1.1 million miles, but fell to just 700,000 miles in the second — cratering by over a third.

The misleading chart isn’t the only way Tesla has tried to dress up its stalling efforts. A day before releasing the earnings report, it announced that it was expanding to two more cities in Florida, Tampa and Orlando — without sharing the size of those fleets, Electrek noted.

It should tell you something that Tesla has gone to great lengths to keep the size of its operation under wraps. In June, Bloomberg reported that its fleet size across all cities was just 59 robotaxis. Only third of those are fully unsupervised; the other vehicles have a human safety monitor sitting in the front seats.

It’s also tried to play up its seemingly spotless safety record. Before the report, the official Tesla account on X bragged that there were “0 notable incidents across over 380,000 miles traveled by Robotaxi.”

But Tesla doesn’t define what a “notable incident” is. Its vehicles have regularly been caught driving erratically and at times dangerously. Only a day after launching in Tampa, one of its Robotaxis was spotted blundering the wrong way down a one way street in the city.

Musk has frequently emphasized that he’s “paranoid about safety” to explain why progress has moved slowly, while at the same time promising to scale things up rapidly. In January he projected that the Robotaxis would cover half the US population by the end of the year.

But investors are running out of patience. Tesla shares plunged by 15 percent on Thursday after the earnings were released, in part due to frustration over the Robotaxis’ laggard progress, and another three percent on Friday.

“More ​is needed to show that Tesla’s capabilities are inflecting” on robotaxis, Barclays analysts said in a note per Reuters, noting that Tesla didn’t provide new expansion targets ​and “hasn’t met previously laid out targets.”

More on Tesla: It’s Looking Like the Cybertruck Is the Biggest Flop in Automotive History

The post This May Be the Most Damning Single Fact in Tesla’s Quarterly Earnings Report appeared first on Futurism.

Another glowing red indicator just lit up on the control panel steering the US economy: short sellers have placed a nearly unprecedented magnitude of bets against the domestic stock market.

A new analysis by the firm S3 Partners has found that short interest in the S&P 500 is now the highest it’s been since the company began compiling that data in 2010, Business Insider reports. In all, S3 found that roughly 3.7 percent of the S&P’s free float — meaning the total market value of shares available to the public for trading — is now tied up in short interest.

That’s a significant number, almost double the short interest in the S&P at the same time last year. For context, BI notes that roughly 3.8 percent of the S&P was hedged against itself right before the 2008 financial crisis, adding to a growing number of data points suggesting the economy is due for a major reckoning.

Stripping it down to plain English, this is a glaring indication that institutional investors are trying to get ahead of the AI financial bubble, which accounts for roughly 60 percent of the index’s growth since April. And the fact that a growing number of investors aren’t just exiting positions, but are actively betting against the US stock market is a massive tell.

For years, a few brave economists and financial analysts have pointed to the fact that the amount of money being spent on AI continues to rise as evidence that the AI bubble is unsustainable.

The thing is, investors are fine with rising costs if there’s enough revenue coming in to justify the spending, which for AI development has already eclipsed $1.6 trillion as of 2026. But whether we’re looking at data centers, digital ad revenue, or the cost of inference, the kind of revenue growth needed simply isn’t there, as the leading tech companies play an increasingly expensive game of kick-the-can-down-the-road.

This is the situation that has investors — and plenty of regular people — nervous about the AI financial bubble. A perfect example can be found in Google’s parent company Alphabet, which reported its first quarter of negative free cash flow this week. The company likewise raised its capital expenditure expectations by a cool $5 to $25 billion, CNBC reported, sending investors running for the hills as the long-promised AI revolution remains a world away.

More on the AI bubble: SoftBank CEO Says You’re Too Stupid to Understand What’s Going on If You Believe the AI Bubble Is Real

The post Investors Laying Groundwork to Profit Massively When Economy Collapses appeared first on Futurism.

On Wednesday, an a pro-privacy account called “Orwell Day” shared a video on X-formerly-Twitter of a man discovering a Flock license plate reader embedded inside an otherwise innocent roadside speedometer. Operated by the local Sheriff’s department, the device was cleverly hidden to be undetectable to approaching road and pedestrian traffic.

“What lurks on the back of it?” the man behind the camera asks as he approaches the device. “Look at that. Someone did some custom metal fabricating and decided to put a Flock camera, a mobile one, anywhere they want to put it, in the speedometer.”

They are hiding Flock cameras now, secret compartment found in speed radar box pic.twitter.com/4kkeRsKufi

— Orwell Day (@OrwellDay) July 22, 2026

That particular unit is operated by police in Volusia County, Florida, encompassing the suburbs north of Orlando. However, it’s not unthinkable that the practice might spread to other locales as the public backlash against ALPRs grows — and it’s growing fast.

So far, the privacy advocates behind the website DeFlock.org note that 53 US cities have ended their previous ALPR contracts with Flock. (Some municipalities are turning to alternative ALPR providers like Axon.)

In cities where local leaders aren’t ready to cut the cord, however, citizens are taking matters into their own hands, sawing down Flock towers, sabotaging their solar charging panels, or paint bombing the camera’s sensors.

While that kind of direct action has forced some municipalities to reconsider their Flock contracts, others are doubling down. Now, it seems some towns are getting crafty, secreting the now-infamous surveillance devices in roadside objects to throw saboteurs off their trail.

It’s not without precedent. In 2025, the Associated Press reported that US Border Patrol officers were hiding ALPRs and other surveillance devices inside traffic barrels, allowing them to monitor thousands of drivers throughout the US for “suspicious travel patterns.”

As the AP reported at the time, the program encompassed states like Arizona, Texas, and Michigan. In many cases, hidden cameras were discovered in locations that were hundreds of miles away from the nearest border.

At the moment, the full scope of covert ALPRs in the US remains to be uncovered. But with over 95,000 of the spy gadgets and counting deployed across the country, the number of hidden cameras is surely much higher than the public is currently aware.

More on Flock: LAPD Abandons Flock Contract After Making a Horrifying Discovery

The post So Many People Are Smashing Flock’s Cameras That It’s Disguising Them Inside Other Objects appeared first on Futurism.

The Cybertruck is a flop. 

For all of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s grandiose claims that the pickup would be an “apocalypse-proof” tank capable of winning its driver style points wherever they go, it’s instead earned a reputation for being incredibly unreliable and just about the opposite of “easy on the eyes” — probably because you can imagine the numerous sharp edges that define its low-poly design poking you in them as soon as you see it.

Most unforgivable in the capitalist society Musk champions, it hasn’t sold well. He once estimated that Tesla would sell up to 500,000 Cybertrucks annually, but it hasn’t even come close to that number in the nearly three years since it first started shipping, and at this point it probably won’t in its entire lifetime.

So, yes. It’s a flop. But could it also be the greatest flop in American automotive history?

A new piece from Bloomberg makes the case, comparing the Tesla vehicle to the misfortunes of Ford’s Edsel, which was first introduced in 1957 and discontinued just two years later. After spending years building up hype for the car, Ford predicted selling 200,000 units in its first year, but ended up selling less than a third of that. 

That’s comparable to expectations versus reality of the Cybertruck. In fact, the Cybertruck is actually doing worse in key ways. Tesla’s annual sales target was 250,000 units, but it didn’t even crack 40,000 sales in its first year. And like the Edsel, it’s sold less with each successive year, with barely 7,100 registered in the US in 2026 so far, according to S&P Global Mobility data — despite Musk juicing those figures by selling Cybertrucks to his own companies.

And like the Cybertruck, the Edsel’s unusual design was also widely mocked. The most notorious feature was its vertical grille, which many jokesters compared to a toilet seat. A review in Time magazine sealed its fate by observing that it looked like “an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon.”

“For most people it was just downright ugly,” Don Sherman, a journalist and auto historian, told Bloomberg.

The exterior wasn’t the only weird — and doomed — thing about the Edsel. In it, Ford debuted a new “Teletouch” push-button shift placed in the center of the steering wheel — yep, right where most cars have a horn button. It confused drivers and frequently malfunctioned. 

(And spiritually, it’s hard to ignore, the Teletouch evokes Tesla’s insistence on hiding features that traditionally have physical buttons in a central touch screen.)

The Edsel is generally cited as the American automotive industry’s biggest disaster. But the projected annual sales target compared to actual sales is actually worse for the Cybertruck. It may be time to put a new car on this ignominious throne.

But will Tesla discontinue the Cybertruck the same way Ford dropped the Edsel? Maybe not. The Cybertruck is a point of pride for Musk and has become synonymous with his vision. Garrett Nelson, an equity analyst at CFRA Research, thinks it’s more likely the truck will “fade away.”

“It’s possible that they try to do some sort of redesign, or come up with a different variant to try to boost sales,” Nelson told Bloomberg, “but we think that would really be a futile effort.”

More on Tesla: Tesla Stock in Freefall After Disastrous Earnings Report

The post It’s Looking Like the Cybertruck Is the Biggest Flop in Automotive History appeared first on Futurism.

While the rest of us were busy rooting against Argentina, suspicious things were afoot on gambling markets related to the World Cup.

The Group of Copenhagen, an international sports integrity body, has flagged seven suspicious bets on platforms including Polymarket, which it says could be related to match manipulation.

The full report hasn’t been released yet. But sources told The Athletic that some of the bets that raised “irregularities” include the nearly $4.8 million placed on Polymarket for Spain not to defeat Cape Verde in their group stage match-up. The game ended in a goalless draw, in one of the first major shocks of the tournament.

Another Polymarket bet that raised suspicion was “Will Folarin Balogun play against Belgium?” which was opened on the same day, July 2, that the US striker received a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A red card means a player is suspended for at least one game, and the Belgium matchup was the US’s next. In a now-scandalous twist, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee made the unprecedented move of suspending Balogun’s suspension, allowing him to play the next game. 

This wasn’t announced until July 5 — and it soon came to light that the decision was made after US president Trump personally called FIFA president Gianni Infantino to complain about the red card; later, Trump praised the deferral of Balogun’s ban as a “great decision.”

Heightening the suspicions, sources told The Athletic that the Group of Copenhagen report found no other markets like the one opened for Balogun were opened for any of the other 14 players who were shown a red card during the World Cup.

FIFA’s own Integrity Task Force, however, doesn’t see any signs of nefarious activity. In a report published Tuesday, it concluded there was “no suspicious betting activity or indications of match manipulation in connection with any fixture,” per The Athletic.

The Group of Copenhagen, by contrast, said it’s found seven “yellow notices” in bets related to the World Cup, which it explains are flagged for reasons including “unexplained fluctuations in odds, rumours on social media or source information.” (Yellow notice ranks below orange and red, the highest level of notice.)

Right now, no specific allegations are being made. But the Balogun bet could be seen as a sign of insider trading. The Trump administration has already been hit with several similar scandals related to prediction markets, including a White House teleprompter who’s being investigated for allegedly making over $100,000 by placing bets on Kalshi related to Trump’s speeches.

It’s possible that the Group of Copenhagen is flagging the bets for reasons other than manipulation, according to Christian Kalb, a gambling industry expert who formerly worked with the organization. Instead, it could be because platforms like Polymarket are being used by hedging markets, as what might be the case with the bets placed over the Spain versus Cape Verde match.

“If you are a traditional bookmaker, there will be matches when everyone bets on a very strong favourite to win. So maybe, from a bookmaker’s perspective, there are too many people betting on this outcome,” Kalb told The Athletic. “If they are a small company, this may be a risk: so they could use a prediction market like Polymarket to hedge that risk.”

More on gambling: A New Type of Gambling Scandal Is Sweeping Through Sports

The post Suspicious Bets on Polymarket Suggest Something Fishy Was Happening During the World Cup appeared first on Futurism.

As fears of a bursting AI bubble reach new heights, Google has emerged as arguably one of the best yard sticks available to measure investor sentiment around AI.

Google’s parent company, Alphabet, released its quarterly earnings report on Wednesday. On the surface, there were plenty of reasons to pop the champagne: as the New York Times reported, the company’s profits rose to a staggering $112 billion, four times higher than the nearly $25 billion in profit over the same period last year.

Yet underlying that banner profit is a familiar beast: the same circular financial motions that gave rise to the AI bubble narrative in the first place.

As the NYT observes, the vast majority of Google’s windfall — $99 billion, to be exact — wasn’t due to actual revenue from AI or any other services the company offers; instead, it was due to Alphabet’s mammoth investments in other tech companies. In particular, Alphabet attributed the massive profits to investments in corporations also chasing the AI payday, like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, as well as Anthropic, the company behind the popular chatbot Claude.

In other words, it’s great financial news — until the instant the AI market crashes, in which case it would all come crashing down. (In an earnings statement, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai enthused that Google’s “AI investments are redefining what’s possible across every part of our business.”)

Under that green surface froth is a churning sea of red. In addition to those starry revenue numbers, Google upped its anticipated 2026 capital expenditures from $180 to $190 billion — already staggering numbers — to an eye-watering $195 to $205 billion. The argument, in a nutshell, is that it needs to spend much more to break out of the computing bottleneck, which will unlock even higher profits next year.

As Gizmodo observed, Alphabet’s chief financial officer Anat Ashkenazi told investors to expect that figure to “increase significantly in 2027.”

At the same time, Alphabet posted a negative free cash flow for the first time as a publicly traded company, meaning the actual cash it generated after covering operating expenses and capital expenditures is worse than nil.

That revised forecast, coupled with the bone-dry cash flow, left investors shellshocked. On Thursday, the day after the company’s earnings report hit newsrooms, Alphabet’s stock fell by 6.89 percent — evidence, perhaps, that massive profits on paper are no longer enough to keep investors hooked at this stage of the AI bubble.

More on Google: Google’s Immense Greed Is Destroying the Open Web

The post Google’s Profits Look a Little Terrifying Under the Hood appeared first on Futurism.

Publishers have watched in horror as Google continues to double down on AI features that discourage users from actually clicking on links — a once-steady source of readership that’s causing a crisis in the media now that the search engine is cutting it off.

The situation has become so dire that some publications are now debating whether to cut Google off entirely, as the Wall Street Journal reports, illustrating an increasingly fraught relationship between the tech giant and the publishers that are creating content its AI models are regurgitating.

According to the newspaper, prominent outlets including USA Today, Politico, the Economist, People, and Reuters are all reexamining their relationship with Google. Some are debating whether to continue to work with the tech giant at all.

“This is existential for some categories of publishers,” media consulting firm media consulting firm DJB Strategies CEO David Buttle told the WSJ. “They are looking at more radical things.”

Even Reddit executives are reevaluating the company’s $60 million-a-year contract that allows Google to train its AI models on user-submitted content on the platform. They’ve similarly watched as Google’s AI features discourage users from navigating to Reddit.

Last month, Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince noticed that automated bot traffic had overtaken human traffic for the first time in the internet’s history, a sobering turning point and concerning inflection point for anyone in the attention economy.

USA Today has seen its traffic from US users drop by almost half over the last year, leading executives to ponder whether to cut off Google’s access entirely.

“It’s time to take a stand and say enough is enough,” USA Today CEO Mike Reed told the WSJ.

Naturally, Google doesn’t see itself as the one to blame, arguing that it’s still sending “billions of clicks to the web every week” and helping “creators and publishers grow their audiences” with the help of AI, as a spokesperson told the newspaper.

Those reassurances, however, are seemingly falling on deaf ears. Beyond pondering whether to cut Google off, other publishers have resorted to suing the company, accusing it of illegally rehashing their intellectual property via AI summaries.

It’s an extremely undesirable position for publishers. By severing ties with the search giant, they could face even steeper declines in traffic. At the same time, there’s seemingly little to gain from having Google’s AIs crawl their content — and in the long term, it could guarantee their destruction.

In some ways, Google is biting the hand that feeds it. AI companies are desperately trying to find new training data that doesn’t include AI-generated slop. By actively discouraging users from visiting websites that source new information, the company is cutting off a fresh supply of the data it so desperately needs.

More on Google: Google Admits It Missed Its Climate Goals — Again — Because of AI

The post Google’s Immense Greed Is Destroying the Open Web appeared first on Futurism.

Last week, SpaceX’s enormous Starship rocket failed to ignite several of its engines, forcing the company to abort its first test launch since its IPO earlier this summer.

The scrub served as the perfect metaphor for the space company’s ongoing struggles to convince investors of CEO Elon Musk’s lofty ambitions — ambitions which have little to no chance of turning into a reality without Starship.

While the almost-trillionaire has promised that SpaceX will one day be worth “more than the rest of the Earth,” its prolonged decline on the stock market suggests otherwise. Instead of joining the AI race, SpaceX has resorted to selling compute to its competitors.

His EV maker Tesla, an early pioneer in the adoption of electric vehicles, has also been flailing. Vehicle sales have been plunging as customers are driven away by the richest man in the world’s tasteless behavior and erratic commentary. Even recent jumps in revenue were thwarted by major AI-related spending, causing Tesla’s share price to tank this week.

As a result of it all, Musk’s empire feels more like it’s coming down around him — making it a perfectly convenient moment for him to sit down with The Economist for an attempt at a clean slate. (Whether it landed we’ll leave to you to decide.)

In the interview, published Thursday, Musk lamented that he “got a little too involved in politics” and “got carried away, frankly,” by his efforts to systematically gut the government with the help of his so-called Department of Government Efficiency during the early days of the second Trump administration.

The scars DOGE leaves behind are as evident now as they’ve ever been. Instead of cutting spending, the group forced tens of thousands of government workers out of their jobs, laid waste to foreign aid — with catastrophic consequences — and leaked highly sensitive data. It has sparked waves of protests, hollowed out the Social Security Administration, and fundamentally undermined the role of science in the United States.

Perhaps worst of all to Musk, his disastrous stint as a “special employee” in Washington, DC, last year has made him staggeringly unpopular — possibly even one of the most hated men in America.

“And I got a lot of flack from this, for this obviously,” he conceded in the Economist interview.

Now that his empire is looking worse for wear, it’s no wonder Musk is looking for an opportunity to tell the public that he’s moved on from helping the Trump administration dismantle the government.

But whether he actually regrets his actions is unclear at best. During the interview, Musk showed “no sign of relinquishing the geopolitical bully pulpit,” per The Economist. He doubled down on accusing the media of wrongfully characterizing him as a racist, despite repeatedly making racist comments. He even argued that Europe’s far-right extremist leaders were simply misunderstood.

In an piece accompanying its interview, The Economist acknowledged it sees the centibillionaire’s political views as “plainly bigoted.”

Musk also promised that AI will make money irrelevant — an “age of amazing abundance,” he enthused — and that governments should simply “issue people checks.” Considering his actions at the helm of DOGE last year, it’s clear he sees little role for the government beyond that.

More on Musk and DOGE: Elon Musk Says He Is So Sorry for His Horrible Behavior

The post Suddenly, as His Empire Crumbles, Elon Musk Admits He Made a Huge Mistake With DOGE appeared first on Futurism.

For director Neill Blomkamp, “District 9” must feel like an eternity ago.

The 2009 sci-fi action film used a quasi-documentary style to tell a thrilling tale of a man fighting for survival against government-backed mercenaries while his body fused with alien DNA — even if, let’s be real, it was an extremely clunky allegory for Apartheid. The heaps of body horror and gritty special effects definitely helped, on top of a breakout performance from Sharlto Copley who conveyed a palpable sense of desperation. It was nominated for four Oscars and made loads of money: by the standards of the film industry, it was an unqualified success.

But it’s mostly been downhill for Blomkamp ever since. His movies have continued to make money, for the most part, but their reception has been worse and worse. He’s gone on to accrue so many unrealized projects that he has an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to them. He also started a blockchain based game development studio, where he’s received backlash for allegedly not paying employees for months on end. Things just don’t seem to go his way.

Now, for a director desperate to make a name for himself again without the same resources he once had at his disposal, where else to turn to but embracing AI?

On Monday, Blomkamp announced “NIGHTBORNE,” his “first full test AI film” made using the popular Chinese model Seedance 2.0. He also announced Barley Studios, his new AI film studio, where he promises more slop spectacles will be forthcoming.

“I’ve been experimenting with AI for a couple of years, and it’s now at the point where I want to tackle a full feature in this format,” Blomkamp enthused.

The film, he claims, “was made with real concept artists, and features the faces and voices of 32 real people.” 

Rather than generate hype, the AI film has been ripped apart as a clear sign of his decline — the pièce de résistance in his fall from grace. “If His Sh*tty AI Movie Is What Finally Taught You Neill Blomkamp Is A Hack,” a headline from Aftermath lambasted, “Then So Be It.” The Verge was no less forgiving, calling it “slop warmed over.” Redditors blasted Blomkamp as a “one hit wonder” who went “full AI slop mode.”

Audiences clearly don’t see a filmmaker embracing AI as a sign that they’re on the cutting edge of the medium. It’s the exact opposite: they’re regressing to letting their artistic choices be dictated by a machine that averages together better art that came before it. Pivoting to AI, in other words, is looking more and more like the death knell for a filmmaker’s career. Darren Aronofsky created an AI-generated video series about the American Revolutionary War that was universally panned. Paul Schrader has repeatedly gushed about AI and teased that he’d do an AI movie, as his career appeared to be on the ice after sexual misconduct allegations.

And Blomkamp, despite being renowned for his gritty visuals and his use of special effects, doesn’t seem to be bring anything new to the table here. His AI imagery looks as generic and uncanny as everyone else’s — maybe even slightly worse, to be honest — with its fast editing style trying to cut around the fact that the AI model can’t generate clips longer than a few seconds at a time.

More on AI: “The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum” Will Use AI to De-Age Actors

The post Neill Blomkamp Is Making It Look Like AI Is the Last Resort for Filmmakers With Failing Careers appeared first on Futurism.

Consumers and agricultural workers rejoice: the Trump administration has killed a key regulation meant to keep toxic human and industrial waste sludge from our food supply, because toxic sludge is apparently not a threat to public health.

On Monday, the Guardian reported that the Environmental Protection Agency is tossing out a major body of research that formed the basis for regulations which would have effectively limited the amount of sewage byproduct we’re allowed to spray into the environment.

The research, published not even two years ago, was conducted in order to study the consequences of toxic PFAS “forever chemical” compounds in treated sewer sludge — called “biosolids” in the wastewater treatment industry. The findings showed that any amount of PFAS above 1 part per billion in sewer sludge used as fertilizer represents an increased cancer risk for farmers, as well as consumers.

That’s a problem, because previous EPA tests have found PFAS levels as high as 9.4 parts per billion in sludge used for agricultural purposes.

The Trump administration, however, says that’s not a problem, because it’s not like we’re spraying biosolids on everything — and so what if a few farm workers get cancer? In a nine-page draft memorandum released by the agency’s Office of Water, the EPA justified the decision by blasting previous EPA research, saying that earlier study created a “misconception” that “all biosolids and sewage sludge use and disposal practices will negatively affect the public.”

“Currently data does not indicate that there are widespread impacts to the food supply from biosolids containing PFOA and PFOS at the national level, and the general public is not likely to be exposed to sewage sludge-impacted foods,” the new draft insists. “The EPA estimates that sewage sludge is applied to less than 1 percent of America’s farmland annually.”

As with any data coming out of the Trump administration, these factual claims should be taken with a hefty grain of salt. Even assuming that basic assertion is correct, it still leaves the farmers and agricultural workers laboring on that farmland exposed.

“It’s shocking for the EPA to take a scientific assessment and simply throw it out,” Laura Dumais, an attorney with the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility told the Guardian. “Basically, they’re saying: farmers’ lives don’t matter.”

It’s also a particularly grim decision in light of the cyclospora outbreak currently roiling the US. Though cyclospora is a parasite and not a type of PFAS, studies have identified agricultural biosolids as a potential source of the gut-busting organism in the food supply. (Also noteworthy is the fact that the company broadly suspected to be responsible for the outbreak, Taylor Farms, made a substantial donation to Donald Trump’s MAGA Inc just days after the FDA pushed back a major regulation on food traceability.)

And as the Trump administration strips regulations that would clamp down on sewer sludge contamination in industrial agriculture, it acknowledges that “approximately 20 percent of sewage sludge managed each year is sold directly to the public or applied to sites where the public might be exposed.”

Rather than continuing with regulations that would make the public safer, the new EPA memorandum advises Americans to “research the supplier of the sewage sludge” and avoid “application of sewage sludge in locations where children may have access to the soil.”

For public health advocates like Dumais, the move amounts to a complete dereliction of the EPA’s duty to the public.

She told the Guardian that “it’s shocking that the EPA is willing to throw all of these people under the bus and the EPA’s solution here is ‘do your own research — we’re not going to regulate anything, so if you think it’s dangerous then figure it out for yourself.'”

More on Trump: Trump Administration Scrapping Nuclear Energy Rules Requiring Plants to Keep Radiation Levels “As Low as Reasonably Achievable”

The post Trump Administration Declares Toxic Sewer Sludge Not a Threat to Public Health appeared first on Futurism.