Is it not enough to simply watch the beautiful game, unadorned?

These days you might use an AI chatbot to keep abreast of what’s happening in the World Cup. And that AI chatbot, in a sign of the times, might try to shove prediction market odds in your face as another way of ostensibly keeping you up to speed. Because are you really getting the full picture if you don’t know where a bunch of gamblers fall on the outcome?

This is exactly what OpenAI is doing. The Sam Altman-led company quietly struck a deal with Kalshi, which lets you bet on outcomes far beyond sports, to show its prediction market data in ChatGPT, the New York Times reported.

It’s perhaps the inevitable melding of two of the most divisive innovations to come out of the tech industry in recent years.

Searching France and Spain on ChatGPT ahead of their quarterfinal clash on Tuesday returned a graphic that showed that Les Bleus had a 60 percent chance of winning, according to the reporting. (We hope no one acted on that information.) Asking about the England and Argentina game on Wednesday showed that the Three Lions had a 54 percent chance of coming out on top.

Neither side promoted the deal, and the graphic is tellingly light on branding. There are no logos and no outbound links. The only sign of the collab is a small notice in the bottom left corner stating, “Source: Kalshi.”

This is the first partnership of its kind for OpenAI. The company recently updated its help page to stress that users “cannot place bets through ChatGPT,” with the Kalshi data being limited to “queries related to the 2026 World Cup,” according to the NYT.

Zooming out, it’s another sign of prediction markets laundering their image by glomming themselves onto other, more credible brands. In January, Kalshi partnered with CNN to provide its real-time prediction data on the news network’s broadcasts. Its rival Polymarket entered into a similar partnership with Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, that same month. Both have also partnered with Google to show their data in search results.

Unlike traditional betting platforms, prediction markets don’t frame what they provide as gambling: they provide markets, not bets. They allow you to wager on all kinds of real-life events, ranging from the geopolitical outcomes to the completely trivial. Polymarket lets you bet on the destruction caused by wildfires and the use of nuclear weapons, for example, while also giving you the chance to make a buck on whether Cristiano Ronaldo will cry at the World Cup. (He did.)

Their fuzzy legal framework, plus their Wild West approach to gambling, has led to numerous controversies. Suspiciously timed bets on massive events like the US’s capture of ousted Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro have raised concerns of rampant insider trading and put pressure on lawmakers to crackdown on the platforms. Arrests have been made in some cases, but these have been rare.

Put simply, for OpenAI, it may be somewhat risky to associate itself with all this baggage, which might be why the Kalshi collaboration is very limited — at least for now.

More on: Grim New Prediction Market Lets Gamblers Bet on Raging Wildfires

The post OpenAI Strikes Bold Deal With Kalshi to Mix Together the Most Hated Technologies in Existence: AI and Prediction Markets appeared first on Futurism.

Twelve nurses in New York City were laid off on Sunday and replaced with AI software, according to their union — a move that comes not long after nurses went on strike and fought for safeguards against AI.

One of the laid off workers, Marilyn Shuler, had worked at Montefiore hospital in the Bronx as a utilization nurse for 39 years before suddenly losing her job. Utilization nurses review patient charts to show that their care is medically necessary so that an insurance company will cover it.

“I’ve always, always taken so much pride in the organization that I’ve worked for all these years, and just to be treated this way,” Shuler told The Guardian. “It’s disrespectful, and it’s very disheartening, and my colleagues feel the same way as well.”

The New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA), which represents the healthcare workers, issued a statement earlier this month warning that Montefiore intended to replace nurses with AI. That has now come to bear. It also drew attention to the fact that the company providing the AI software, Datavant, has partnerships with Palantir, the surveillance tech firm which has stirred considerable controversy for its collaboration with ICE.

In January, some 15,000 nurses started what would become a 41-day strike at several of the state’s largest hospitals. The outcome of this was a new three-year contract which included historic safeguards against AI. 

But when Shuler and others returned to work in February, their workflow was changed without explanation, according to The Guardian. After a period of radio silence from management, the dozen nurses abruptly received 45-day notices in late May saying that they would be laid off.

“We are outraged about these layoffs because these dedicated nurses are being replaced by AI,” Shaiju Kalathil, a Montefiore nurse and a union committee member, said in the statement. “This is a violation of the contract that we recently won by going on strike. It should also concern every practitioner and patient who cares about the future of healthcare and the quality of care they receive.”

There’ve been clear warning signs that AI could disrupt healthcare workers. Doctors and nurses use AI tools for clinical notes, and some clinics use AI to help triage patients. Shortly after the nurses’ strike, the CEO of the NYC Health and Hospitals, the largest city healthcare system in the US, openly enthused about replacing radiologists with AI.

The transition to using AI could carry significant risks. In Brazil, a 32-year-old woman reportedly died after an AI system for assigning hospital beds left her waiting five days to be transferred to an intensive care unit.

Montefiore denies the framing that it replaced workers with AI.

“As is often the case, the claims by NYSNA are inaccurate and misleading,” Joe Solmonese, senior vice-president for government relations and strategic communications at Montefiore, told The Guardian. “What is true is that we are always investing in new technology to ensure the best care and outcomes for our patients and will continue to do so for the betterment of the people we serve.”

More on AI: A Majority of Americans Now Support Seizing Wealth From AI Industry

The post Health Care Workers Furious as NYC Replaces Nurses With AI appeared first on Futurism.

Many moviegoers this summer are looking forward to Christopher Nolan’s highly anticipated film “The Odyssey.” But have you considered that you could watch a pure AI slop adaptation of the Greek epic instead?

Enter “Odysseus: The Fall,” a fully AI-generated movie from the startup Fountain 0. At 135 minutes long, it will certainly test your patience as it hurls screensaver-grade images at you which look cribbed from better movies, creating the impression that this is really a generic amalgamation of other people’s ideas about what Greek mythology should look like, rather than the creators’ own.

The director, Ash Koosha, told Hollywood Reporter  it cost in the “mid-five figures” to make, and openly hopes to cash in on the hype around Nolan’s film.

“We very much hope that Christopher Nolan’s film, ‘The Odyssey,’ is a raging success at the box office, and in some way that our version of the journey of Odysseus might further that success by bringing to theaters those who might not otherwise come out to see the film, simply because they are curious to see the ultimate in human creation and compare it to one man’s collaboration with AI,” Koosha said in a wordy statement.

You have to wonder if Koosha has ever asked Nolan’s thoughts on AI. In a recent interview, the Oscar-winning director was skeptical about the tech, praising Gen Z for “utterly rejecting” for what he described as “AI slop.”

The official synopsis for Koosha’s film sounds suspiciously AI-generated. The film, Fountain 0 says, focuses on “the fractured memory of a drowning man in his final minutes — a voyage that is really a trial, where every monster wears his own handwriting,” per The Hollywood Reporter. 

“Stripped of the word ‘clever,'” it continues, “what remains is a man reckoning with what he actually did to get home. It ends where the songs never go: not with a hero’s welcome, but with forgiveness offered by the one person who knows exactly what he is.”

Wears his own handwriting? Stripped of the word clever? We implore you to guess what any of that means.

A short teaser released by the studio promises that the film will be as sloppy as its synopsis suggests. The footage is impressively photorealistic, but has all the aesthetic trappings of AI, with cliche shots and a familiar uncanny sheen. It was all assembled together in three months, Kosha says, and we can tell.

Kosha enthused about the loose production style that AI afforded, allowing him to constantly fine-tune the footage to meet what Variety generously describes as Kosha’s “unconstrained vision.”

“We’re in post production right now. Still, the script is open to interpretation,” Koosha told the trade publication. “Why? Because the risks don’t exist,” he added, cryptically.

Why this half-baked AI slop-tacle is getting glowing write-ups in Variety and THR when there’s plenty of promising indie movies made at shoestring budgets that don’t even get a sniff at recognition is anyone’s guess.

But at the same time, it’s not surprising. In June, The Wall Street Journal contributed to the hype cycle around the AI-generated flick “Hell Grind” when it erroneously reported it debuted at the Cannes Film Festival. In reality, it was shown in another Cannes event out of competition.

More on AI: AI “Actor” Will “Star” In a New “Movie”

The post We’d Rather Live Through the Trojan War Than Spend 135 Minutes Watching an Entirely AI Version of “The Odyssey” appeared first on Futurism.

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok has long garnered a reputation for experiencing horrifically racist meltdowns, enabling child abuse, and doxxing users’ home addresses.

It should come as no surprise, then, that its supposed “translation” is a piece of work, too. In April, the almost-trillionaire’s social media platform X instated automatic AI translations for all of its users — and the results certainly speak for themselves.

As writer and author Parker Molloy pointed out in a recent post on Bluesky, the Grok feature is “taking some interesting liberties” with people’s otherwise sincere posts.

Screenshots show how Grok completely botched translations by coming up with shocking and decidedly NSFW AI hallucinations.

One South Korean user, for instance, posted an otherwise tame video of two video game characters, only for the auto-translate feature to allege that it was a “c**shot video with my stepmom.”

“I am not sure it is the right translation,” a taken-aback user replied.

“It isn’t correct at all!” the original poster lamented.

Another post by Portuguese account POPTime shows a video of a man making an elaborate cup of coffee during a flight.

But a purported translation “from Portuguese by Grok” claimed that the video shows a man who is pleasuring himself in public.

“Grok auto translate is inaccurate, text actually translates to ‘Man grinds and brews his own coffee during a commercial flight,’ not ‘Man masturbates and jerks off to his own coffee during commercial flight,'” an appended community note reads.

Another Turkish user, who posted an innocent picture of their young kitten, was horrified after Grok’s translation suggested that they were looking to “f*** our baby.”

“Uhhh the automatic translation makes it alarming,” another user replied.

To the X community, which has already seen its fair share of Grok’s foul-mouthed shenanigans, the AI’s profanity-laden translations were just another bemusing distraction.

But to anybody looking to meaningfully post on social media, the bizarre liberties the chatbot is taking perfectly highlight the sorry state of the microblogging platform. Ever since Musk took over in 2022, users have noted a major uptick in the proliferation of hate speech and disinformation. Researchers have found that X’s AI models are driving online racist abuse.

Grok’s ability to come up with AI images, in particular, has been mired in controversy, from being used to generate nonconsensual nudes of women to a single account that was recently found to have posted thousands of explicit images of an 11-year-old girl.

Musk’s prodigal chatbot, in other words, has been guilty of crimes far worse than expletive-laden translations.

More on Grok: Grok Linked to Sickening Crime in Lawsuit That Puts SpaceX in Crosshairs

The post Grok’s Foul-Mouthed AI “Translation” Feature Puts Unspeakably Ghoulish Words Into Users’ Mouths appeared first on Futurism.

To say Americans are divided on AI would be an understatement.

Polls have shown that more people than ever have a negative view of the tech, and you can take your pick on the reasons why. AI could displace jobs, destroy the environment, and drive up energy bills. It’s trained on stolen writing and artwork, and chatbots are driving people into mental health spirals.

But what does the public think should be done about this? A new national survey from Versasight suggests that the majority of Americans are down for taking a drastic course of action.

According to the survey of 1,700 adults, an impressive 69 percent of US employees support forcing AI companies to transfer 50 percent of their stock into a public wealth fund, an idea that has been championed by senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT).

“In the eyes of the public, AI Sovereign funds are seen as a tool to distribute the gains from the AI industry back to broader society,” Verasight CEO Benjamin Leff told CNBC News. 

Once at the fringe of political discourse, Sanders took the idea mainstream when he proposed the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act in June. In an essay published in the New York Times, the independent senator argued that the creation of this fund would “give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology.”

“It would guarantee that the economic benefits generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us — not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer,” he added in a statement last month.

The act would target the largest AI companies in the US such as Anthropic and OpenAI, mandating that they submit to a one time 50 percent tax on their stock. At their current valuations, Sanders estimated that this would create a fund worth around $7 trillion. The money in this fund could offset some of the widespread disruption AI could wreak on society, the thinking goes.

Not all AI industry critics are on board. Some have argued that giving the government such a large stake in AI companies would encourage it to clear away regulations, and give AI companies even greater influence over the government than they already have.

You could say it’s a flawed and far-fetched idea, but Americans are on board, perhaps underscoring the desperation for someone to do something about the industry. Even when the policy was explicitly tied to Sanders, the survey found that 64 percent of respondents still supported the idea.

“There is an undeniable desire among Americans of both parties for federal oversight, absolute transparency, and accountability to ensure AI safety and to enable all Americans to participate in the economic benefits of AI,” Leff said in a statement.

More on AI: US Companies Are Realizing That Chinese AI Models Are Way Cheaper, Ditch American Ones

The post A Majority of Americans Now Support Seizing Wealth From AI Industry appeared first on Futurism.

One of the largest health networks integrating AI into the medical space is facing allegations that its high-tech tools are ruining patients’ lives.

In a new civil suit, former Mayo Clinic research director and AI compliance lead Traci Tamiko Eto alleges that the globally recognized hospital retaliated against her for blowing the whistle on its disastrous implementations of AI health tools.

According to reporting by Minnesota Public Radio, Eto first joined the Mayo Clinic in 2023. After flagging potential privacy problems linked with the hospital’s Mayo Clinic Platform, an AI-integrated data system, Eto says her supervisor ignored her concerns. Instead, she says her boss “insisted” that fixing the issue would “jeopardize the pace on ongoing research projects, which in turn would compromise Mayo’s competitive advantage.”

Eto continued, MPR reports, flagging multiple failures of Mayo Clinic higher-ups to follow federal regulations on review processes of new tech, like MAYA, the clinic’s AI-integrated digital assistant. According to the lawsuit, the team working on MAYA deleted unflattering test results, mischaracterized the tool’s abilities, and made decisions that put data security in jeopardy.

Tucked inside her ten separate whistleblower complaints, MPR notes, is the allegation that the team working on MAYA knew the tool had an error rate as high as 67 percent. Eto alleges that instead of flagging that horrifying number, MAYA staffers tried to hide it.

As a result, Eto says she began to be excluded from executive meetings in early 2025, before being told she was a “poor cultural fit.” She was offered a choice, the lawsuit alleges: either resign, or face alterations to her personnel file “that would render her unemployable at Mayo and would impede her career outside the institution.”

As the major lawsuit moves forward, the threat of career-ending backlash remains.

“When an individual decides that they are willing to file a lawsuit against a public goliath on matters that are hot button issues in our country, she is literally risking her career,” Eto’s attorney, Artur Davis told MPR. “She is risking being attacked professionally. She is risking her reputation, and for her to do that tells you something about her level of confidence that she’s right.”

Mayo was pretty tight-lipped in response to the suit.

“Our research and clinical innovation are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and we remain steadfast in upholding the trust patients place in us and respecting their privacy,” the organization’s communications director told MPR in a statement. “Mayo Clinic does not comment on pending or active litigation.”

While the suit revolves around Eto’s wrongful termination, it represents a significant referendum on the state of AI tools in the medical space. If a healthcare titan like Mayo Clinic is lying about the efficacy of its AI-integrated tools, what does that mean for the rest of the industry?

“If [people] care about the notion that AI has to be handled in a responsible manner,” Davis said, “with integrity, and there have to be rules and guidelines, this is a case that should matter to you.”

More on AI: Millions of Americans Are Talking to AI Instead of Going to the Doctor, and It’s Giving Them Horrendously Flawed Medical Advice

The post Lawsuit Claims the Mayo Clinic’s Use of AI Is Butchering Patient Care appeared first on Futurism.

Being fired was only the first indignity that one freelance writer had to suffer. 

Even though Ben Touati was no longer working at ClickOut Media, new articles continued to appear under his name. An AI, it turned out, had taken over his byline, churning out stuff that was far below the standards he held for his real work.

The situation felt like a “slap in the face,” Touati told Press Gazette. The articles started appearing just days after he was fired from ClickOut’s German operation.

“The five articles were just like lazy, obviously slop, obviously there’s not a real person that is behind that,” the Stockholm-based writer fumed.

A statement from ClickOut Media didn’t address why it was effectively impersonating a former employee with AI.

“We use AI-assisted content where appropriate in tandem with human checks and edits,” it said in the statement, per Press Gazette. “We continue to evolve our AI agents to be more accurate and improve our human editorial processes.”

Heaps of online publishers are embracing AI — often deceptively — and Clickout Media is right up there with the worst of them.

Earlier this year, it became the center of controversy after an article on one of its websites, Videogamer, turned out to be written by a bogus AI journalist. That was just the tip of the iceberg; so were plenty of other articles on its other outlets that it had gobbled up and hollowed out, with some of the fake authors even coming with AI-generated profile photos. 

Touati first began working with Clickout Media in early 2024 and was moved around between its different sites — including Techopedia, iGaming, and Esports Insider — seemingly on no more than his managers’ whims. He said he had to repeatedly resist pressure to use AI to write articles. Managers would say, “It’s almost impossible to get by without AI these days.” Employees were also shown a video on how to create and “humanize” AI-written articles.

“I just left the video running and didn’t pay attention to it,” Touati told Press Gazette.

Eventually, the grim reaper of AI came a-knocking. In early 2026, his managers told him that they’d fired multiple freelancers because there wasn’t enough work. Everyone had “upscaled” their productivity with AI. Then he was told he was getting let go because Esports Insider had been de-indexed by Google.

Soon, in late May, he found that the site was still publishing articles under his name. He was able to achieve some recourse, at least: he used the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation to file a claim against ClickOut for misusing his personal information, and it later removed his byline from the articles. Now, they appear under a different writer’s name.

More on AI: Coinbase AI Sends Mass “Breaking News” Alert That’s Completely Hallucinated

The post Journalist Alarmed When He’s Fired, But Company Keeps Posting AI Slop Under His Name appeared first on Futurism.

AI chatbots has been a dream come true for criminals.

The tech has been a boon for scammers. Hackers are using the tools to infiltrate networks and steal sensitive data. Art forgers are even generating fake invoices to certify the authenticity of dupes.

In a perhaps-inevitable escalation, chatbots are even giving a major leg up to terrorist groups. As detailed in a new paper by University of Cambridge international security expert Antonia Juelich, former Boko Haram members recounted using frontier AI model chatbots to “assist in combat and day-today operations.”

The research highlights how easy it still is to circumvent AI chatbot guardrails, making them an excellent resource not just for average users doing work tasks or planning a weekend getaway — but for bloodthirsty terrorists as well.

“It has aided in attack planning, weapons troubleshooting, and the design of explosive devices, as users have successfully circumvented some safeguards,” Juelich wrote in her paper.

Put simply, the creators of AI tech have some serious blood on their hands. And it’s not just in Nigeria; Juelich’s research also highlights how the use of AI among extremist groups, including militant organization the Islamic State, has turned from generating propaganda and recruitment materials to providing tactical advice on how to maintain an on-the-ground edge.

“Islamic State operatives have provided in-person AI training and remote assistance, and both factions of Boko Haram have set up dedicated AI units,” Juelich wrote. “Former members described strong enthusiasm for AI within the group, and some expressed openness to mass-casualty weapons, though the group’s use of AI remains conventional.”

Juelich’s research is based on 57 in-person interview with 27 former Boko Haram members, including commanders and technical specialists. Some of them were taken aback at how easy it was to plan their next attack.

“You type in the question or use your voice and it [AI] gives you a detailed answer, like ‘How can I build a bomb?’ and then it tells you how,” one member said in an interview. “It is like a human robot! We used it a lot.”

“Before, the bomb explosion was not that big, but then they studied it,” they added. “AI told us what chemicals to put in that made the explosion heavier.”

Another member recalled how young recruits easily circumvented safety guardrails by telling the chatbots that “they need it for a movie or something like that.”

AI companies have been caught in a yearslong game of cat-and-mouse, struggling to implement changes that bar users from obtaining dangerous informationor guidance. But despite their best efforts, it remains trivially easy to get around these protections. Case in point, during a recent investigation, the Financial Times and AI safety group Alice easily tricked Google and Meta AI models into divulging how to carry out chlorine gas attacks, steal credit information, and describe stories of child sexual abuse.

In other words, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the tools have turned out to be a big hit among terrorists.

“The terrorists are not waiting for us to make AI safe,” Juelich told the NYT. “They are able to use them now and train them to cause harm.”

Spokespeople for both Anthropic and Google failed to take accountability when asked for comment by the newspaper, saying only that they had strict and effective guardrails in place.

“We know that bad actors will never stop trying to misuse our tools, and we’ll continue strengthening our defenses in response,” OpenAI spokesman Drew Pusateri said.

More on AI: Character.AI Still Hasn’t Fixed Its School Shooter Problem We Identified in 2024

The post The AI Industry Has Finally Found the Perfect Customer: Bloodthirsty Terrorists appeared first on Futurism.

The massive surge of fossil fuel-powered data centers cropping up across the country are emitting an enormous amount of pollution, a pulsing indication that we’re headed in the wrong direction in the midst of a climate crisis.

The extent of the this polluting activity is confounding. As climate action group Floodlight found in a recent investigation spotted by Wired, Texas has become the epicenter of the United States’ current obsession with constructing AI data centers. Companies are exploiting regulatory loopholes as they construct new facilities powered by pollutant-spewing onsite gas plants.

The rate of growth of this “shadow grid” of custom power plants, some of which are big enough to fuel entire cities, is so enormous that the only global entity installing more gigawatts of gas plants than Texas is China, according to environmental group Global Energy Monitor.

On a national scale, scientists are still racing to wrap their heads around the environmental footprint of our new AI obsession. Cornell researchers found that at the current rate of AI growth, the burgeoning industry could represent 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, the equivalent of adding five to ten million cars to US roadways.

Meanwhile, ongoing projects like the one in Abilene, Texas, the starting point of president Donald Trump’s flagship $500 billion Stargate project, are obtaining environmental permits that are usually reserved for small businesses like gas stations or dry cleaners, as Wired reports. The project’s facilities feature a whopping 62 diesel backup generators, making it orders of magnitude bigger than smaller ventures that use just one or two.

According to Floodlight, at least 38 data centers in Texas are using such regulatory loopholes to gain permits for onsite power sources, representing northward of 2,100 backup diesel generators, and yearly emissions of 2,500 tons of nitrogen oxides, which are highly toxic gases.

One common tactic for operators in Texas, according to Floodlight, is to announce a small data center development that would come in under pollution thresholds, only to suddenly expand once established.

Worse yet, for residents, it’s already likely too late to do anything against the data center expansion.

“The only chance to stop something like this is to do it at the very, very, very beginning of the process — before the permit is issued — through the public participation process,” former Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staffer James Doty told Wired.

More on data center pollution: Amazon Is Spewing a Record Breaking Amount of Pollution to Power Its AI Data Centers

The post The Pollution Being Churned Out by AI Data Centers Is So Severe That It’s Almost Incomprehensible appeared first on Futurism.

Crypto marketplace Coinbase is under fire after sending out an AI-generated breaking news alert that Norway’s national men’s soccer team had clinched a spot in the quarter finals of the ongoing FIFA World Cup by beating Brazil 3-2 — before the game even started.

While Norway did eventually beat Brazil — with a final score of 2-1, contrary to what Coinbase’s AI claimed — the glaring error didn’t sit well with netizens, particularly considering Coinbase had struck a partnership with prediction markets app Kalshi. A hallucinated news alert could’ve caused bettors to lose out, a panic triggered by an entirely made-up World Cup match outcome.

It’s also baffling considering how long companies have been dealing with this exact problem. Since the dawn of large language model-based tools like ChatGPT, the bots have been confidently telling lies and fabricating facts. That’s despite hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on the tech’s development.

Combined with a growing obsession over prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket, it’s a fatal mix that could trigger plenty of chaos, as experts warn of a surge in gambling addiction.

Puzzled users on social media noticed Coinbase’s AI hallucination, calling out the company for the “dangerous and irresponsible” flub.

“Taking a look with the team,” Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong tweeted in response to the embarrassing slip up. “Thanks for reporting it.”

The company’s head of consumer products, Max Branzburg, claimed hours later that “we fixed the incorrect story and made some updates to avoid these types of inaccuracies in the future.”

Despite the significant humiliation, Branzburg gloated about the “power of AI-enabled 24/7 insights for trading,” while conceding that Coinbase “obviously” still needs to “tune it to address these types of issues.”

The executive even had the gall to take credit for getting certain things right, arguing that “Norway did win and [star player Erling] Haaland did score 2 goals, so maybe the AI knew something we didn’t!”

Needless to say, it’s a bizarre argument, considering the AI was completely wrong about the outcome of the game before it even started.

The crypto firm is far from the last to have sent out entirely incorrect new alerts. In perhaps the worst error, Apple was forced to pull an AI feature that consistently delivered bogus news alerts to iPhone users in January of last year. The BBC had filed a formal complaint after the AI falsely told users that Luigi Mangione, who stands accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, had shot himself.

Mangione is very much alive to this day and awaiting his federal trial, which was recently postponed to January 2027.

Norway’s soccer team is set to take on England on Saturday, July 11, in Miami.

More on Coinbase: Coinbase CEO Pulls Up Predictions Market During Earnings Call and Rattles Off Words People Were Betting He’d Say

The post Coinbase AI Sends Mass “Breaking News” Alert That’s Completely Hallucinated appeared first on Futurism.

In a pioneering stride towards maintaining the integrity of scientific literature, MDPI has fully implemented its proprietary artificial intelligence-powered system called Ethicality. This sophisticated tool is now embedded within the publishing workflow to automatically screen all submitted manuscripts, revolutionizing the approach to safeguarding the scientific record. Ethicality is engineered to operate continuously throughout the editorial process, offering a proactive framework that enhances the evaluation and decision-making capabilities of editors globally. Presently, it processes around 2,000 submissions daily, handling a vast and diverse array of academic contributions from across the world.

The development of Ethicality reflects the pressing need for automated solutions in the face of surging scholarly output and increasing demands for transparency, speed, and quality in academic publishing. Traditional manual screening methods, once the norm, are no longer adequate to detect sophisticated manipulations or emerging threats posed by advanced generative AI techniques. Its design integrates an end-to-end integrity layer that scrutinizes manuscripts from the moment they enter the editorial system, ensuring continuous vigilance rather than episodic checks. This paradigm shift marks a new era in editorial practices, combining the precision of AI with human expertise to set robust guardrails around the publication pipeline.

Dr. Milos Cuculovic, MDPI’s head of technology innovation, emphasizes that the role of AI within this context is not to replace editors but to augment their capabilities. Ethicality functions as a vigilant assistant, flagging potential ethical issues and inconsistencies while leaving final judgment to experienced professionals. This human-in-the-loop approach enables a balance where automation streamlines routine tasks without compromising critical oversight. Such a model helps preserve transparency and trust at scale, combating increasingly sophisticated tactics that jeopardize scientific authenticity, such as synthetic content generation, fabricated submissions, and manipulated peer review reports.

Ethicality’s analytical engine examines each submission comprehensively by dissecting fundamental manuscript components, including the title, abstract, author metadata, main body, and reference lists. Beyond textual elements, it also reviews peer review reports sent with the manuscripts, employing natural language processing techniques and machine learning algorithms tailored for scholarly content. This holistic evaluation identifies a wide spectrum of potential integrity breaches, ranging from paper mill-generated manuscripts and spurious authorship claims to subtle citation manipulations and irregular referencing patterns that may indicate gaming of metrics or unethical publication practices.

One of the system’s remarkable features lies in its ability to detect AI-generated or altered text, a rapidly emerging threat in the digital publication ecosystem. Leveraging large language models fine-tuned to recognize nuances and inconsistencies characteristic of synthetic content, Ethicality can pinpoint sections likely created or tampered with by artificial intelligence. This capability is crucial amid widespread concerns that generative AI tools could be exploited to fabricate scientific results or obfuscate fraudulent data, undermining trust in scholarly communication. The AI’s detection mechanisms, however, are continuously refined against real-world data to minimize false positives and maintain editorial efficiency.

In addition to content analysis, Ethicality collaborates with external software suites to cover domains beyond textual scrutiny. For instance, image manipulation detection is managed via integration with specialized tools like Proofig, which applies forensic algorithms to uncover alterations in scientific figures and illustrations. For plagiarism and text duplication, the system incorporates iThenticate services to cross-reference submissions with an extensive repository of published works. This multi-layered approach strengthens MDPI’s ability to uphold ethical standards by combining internal AI capabilities with trusted third-party solutions to comprehensively monitor manuscript authenticity.

The advent of such an automated system answers growing concerns about the sustainability of peer review in an era characterized by exponential growth in submission volumes. By automating repetitive and technical screening tasks, Ethicality frees up valuable editorial resources, allowing human experts to concentrate on evaluating the scientific merit and originality of manuscripts rather than being overwhelmed by manual integrity checks. This redistribution of effort ensures that editorial workflows can keep pace with demand without compromising quality or publication timelines, addressing one of the major bottlenecks in modern scholarly publishing.

Dr. Enric Sayas, the product owner of Ethicality, highlights that the publishing sector is entering a technological race where adversaries leverage advanced AI to generate deceptive manuscripts and fake review reports. Traditional detection tools alone are insufficient to counteract such sophistication. Only by deploying equally advanced AI systems, capable of multi-modal analysis encompassing textual, image, and metadata anomalies, can publishers effectively defend the credibility of scholarly records. Ethicality embodies this next-generation defense mechanism, combining deep learning models with domain-specific heuristics to expose fraudulent submissions before they can impact the scientific corpus.

Ethicality’s role extends beyond mere detection; it facilitates informed decision-making by generating risk signals that prioritize editorial scrutiny. This nuanced output classifies flagged cases according to severity and type of ethical concern, enabling editors to apply their judgment where most critical while bypassing lower-risk items. Such targeted intervention reduces unnecessary delays in the publication process and improves the overall efficiency of manuscript handling. The system’s iterative design also permits continuous learning from editor feedback, enhancing accuracy and adaptability as new manipulation techniques emerge.

The timing of Ethicality’s deployment coincides with an inflection point in scholarly publishing, where generative AI tools have made it increasingly feasible to produce lifelike but fraudulent scientific content. This proliferation necessitates automated defenses that not only identify outright fraud but also detect subtler anomalies such as inconsistent author data, suspicious referencing behavior, and peer review irregularities. By integrating these multifaceted analyses, MDPI demonstrates a comprehensive and forward-looking strategy aimed at preserving the integrity and credibility of academic knowledge dissemination.

Crucially, Ethicality exemplifies how technology can be harnessed responsibly within complex human ecosystems. It respects the indispensable role of expert editors by operating as a sentinel that brings potential issues to attention while leaving interpretive authority intact. This model upholds core values of transparency, accountability, and collaborative oversight, providing a blueprint for other publishers grappling with integrity challenges in the AI era. Moreover, it underscores the broader imperative for publishers to innovate continuously in response to evolving threats and technological opportunities, ensuring that scientific publishing remains a trusted pillar of global knowledge advancement.

As MDPI’s journey with Ethicality moves forward, continuous enhancements and iterations are planned, driven by real-world data and editorial collaboration. This adaptive approach ensures the system evolves alongside the changing landscape of academic publishing and the advent of new manipulative tactics. Ultimately, Ethicality stands as a testament to the potential of AI-powered tools to reinforce scientific integrity, protect the scholarly record, and empower editorial professionals in an increasingly complex and dynamic environment.

Subject of Research: Artificial intelligence applications in scholarly publishing and research integrity
News Publication Date: 2024
Image Credits: MDPI

Keywords

Academic publishing, research integrity, artificial intelligence, editorial workflow automation, AI-generated scientific content detection, paper mill detection, peer review screening, scholarly publishing technology, automated manuscript analysis, scientific record safeguarding