Data centers across the United States have been criticized for harming local environments sourcing power - sometimes illegally - from gas burning turbines that can release harmful pollutants into the air surrounding local communities.
But dozens of data centers have been accused of releasing harmful chemicals, heavy metals, and rare bacteria with the wastewater they release into nearby treatment facilities and waterways.
Violations have been logged for data centers in Wyoming, Virginia, New York, and Georgia, but the problem likely extends far across the rest of the US. Information on water usage and discharge for many data centers is hard to come by - or is being actively blocked.
Pollutants released into water across the US
In Wyoming, Meta was recently forced to halt water discharges from the construction site of its enormous 960-acre Cheyenne campus after a resistant bacterium - Cupriavidus gilardii - was found within a local water treatment facility.
The bacterium was identified after regulators tested a sample of the 801,000 gallons Meta had discharged into Cheyenne’s sewers. Following concerns that local residents could inhale droplets of the contaminated water if it was used for irrigation, local officials decided to stop accepting wastewater from the construction site.
Two water treatment facilities were forced offline as part of a multi-month decontamination and cleanup operation. Meta’s contractor responsible for the site, Goat Systems, is appealing the decision of officials to stop accepting wastewater from the site.
Multiple data centers across Virginia are facing enforcement actions from local authorities for violating wastewater and wetland regulations. In one such case, a data center under construction in West Virginia has funneled stormwater runoff into a local residential area, causing flooding on two occasions.
A data center near Lake Seneca, New York, is facing criticism from the Seneca Lake Guardian organization. The site was previously a cryptocurrency mining data center, but has been transitioning towards handling AI workloads instead. Seneca Lake Guardian has said that wastewater from the site flows directly into Lake Seneca at temperatures of up to 108F (42C), which can harm fish living in the lake and cause blooms of toxic algae.
The company behind the data center, Vulcan Infrastructure and Power, says it complies with all relevant environmental laws.
Multiple new data centers in Georgia have been approved to draw water from the Chattahoochee river, but local environmental guardians, such as water policy director at Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Chris Manganiello, are being blindsided by a complete lack of information on how much water will be taken from the river, and what will be put back in.
“We need to know what is in this wastewater but there is a void of information,” Mangeniello told The Guardian. “I would like there to not be more Pfas [forever chemicals] going into the river but there is this level of anxiety because we don’t know what’s there.”
Don’t throw the Pfas out with the cooling water
Data centers pump water through miles of pipes crisscrossing their hardware in order to draw away excess heat. While there have been moves towards “closed-loop” cooling technology - where the water used is recycled within the system - there are still valid environmental concerns associated with these systems.
Before using a closed-loop system, the pipes need to be flushed through with water to wash away any debris or contaminants that were deposited within the pipes during assembly. This water is then released back into sewers to be cleaned by local treatment plants.
But many water treatment plants simply aren’t built to handle filtering water that contains industrial contaminants. These contaminants can include heavy metals or Pfas that can cause health problems in humans and animals.
Data centers are also being built in drought-hit regions, largely because the land is cheap, placing additional strain on already struggling water tables. Data centers can use hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per day to stay operational, and while closed-loop systems ensure this water is only taken out of the cycle once, it is still a significant sum of water to remove from regions experiencing droughts.
The first trailer for Neon's Sam Altman biopic Artificial has been revealed
The Andrew Garfield-led movie will be released in late 2026/early 2027
It covers Altman's controversial rise to prominence as OpenAI's co-founder
The first trailer for Artificial, a movie about controversial OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman, has been revealed.
Unveiled yesterday (September 8), the teaser for the Neon-distributed film strikes an unusually sinister tone for what's being billed as a biographical comedy-drama.
Indeed, from the gun-laden room that lead star Andrew Garfield, who'll portray Altman, visits, to Garfield's unsettling voiceover that plays over Artificial's publicly-released footage, it's certainly foreboding in nature. I get the feeling, then, that it'll be a dark-comedy dramatization of Altman's rise of prominence, the launch of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT, and his brief and somewhat disputable ousting as OpenAI CEO in late 2023.
Artificial will initially debut in US theaters on December 25, 2026, before receiving a wider international rollout in early 2027. UK viewers, for example, will have to wait until January 22, 2027 to catch one of many new movies that'll arrive in the months ahead.
Artificial cast and crew: who's involved?
Garfield (left) will be joined by a whole host of famous faces in Artificial (Image credit: Neon)
Oscar-nominated filmmaker Luca Guadagnino (Challengers, Call Me By Your Name) is on directing duties, while Saturday Night Live writing alumnus Simon Rich has penned its screenplay. Meanwhile, Blur and Gorillaz frontman Damon Albarn has also created original music and songs for Artificial.
Where the movie's cast is concerned, Garfield, who impersonates another Silicon Valley techbro following his portrayal of Eduardo Savarin in The Social Network, aka the 2010 dramatization about Facebook's creation, is arguably its most recognizable star — and based on what little footage we've seen thus far, he appears to have Altman's mannerisms, vernacular, and other unique traits down to a tee.
Here's who else you'll see in Artificial:
Yura Borisov (Anora) as Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI's chief scientific officer and co-founder
Monica Barbaro (Crime 101) as Mira Murati, OpenAI's chief technology officer
Cooper Hoffman (The Long Walk) as Greg Brockman, OpenAI's chairman
Ike Barinholtz (The Studio) as Elon Musk
Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies) as Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called 'Godfather of AI'
Jason Schwartzman (The Grand Budapest Hotel) as TBC
Chris O'Dowd (The IT Crowd) as TBC
What is the plot of Artificial?
Artificial will seemingly focus on a specific period of OpenAI's history (Image credit: Neon)
Here's the official logline for Artifical: "[The movie] chronicles the incredibly consequential days leading up to the sudden firing and reinstatement of Sam Altman, as the fate of who gets to control the technology at the centre of an AI arms race hangs in the balance."
It's unclear how much of Altman's backstory, his various relationships with his OpenAI colleagues, and ChatGPT's launch and subsequent sociopolitical impact will be covered as part of Artificial's story. One thing is for sure, though: given that it dramatizes events concerning Altman and OpenAI, the discourse that will surround Artificial's release will be impossible to ignore.
The discussion of communication communication technologies continues as the panel of Chuck Joiner, Jeff Gamet, and Marty Jencius make the jump from telegraphs and long-distance calls to texting, smartwatches, satellite connectivity, and possible implanted devices. How science fiction anticipated so many of today’s modern communications questions such as convenience, safety, privacy, tracking, and social change wrap […]
A neutron star is what remains after the core of a massive star collapses. It is not a small ordinary star. It is the crushed core of a dead one, compressed until protons and electrons are forced together and most of the material becomes neutrons. The result is one of the strangest objects in the […]
CarPlay chatbots now span five major services, giving the growing collection of dashboard apps a much more conversational side. Claude is the latest addition, joining ChatGPT, Perplexity, Grok, and Meta AI. Drivers can increasingly bring their preferred AI service into the car through an iPhone app update, although access is not equally open across all five.
The appeal is easy to understand. A question comes to mind during a trip, and instead of saving it for later, you can ask it aloud. A follow-up can become part of the same conversation. There is no need to turn every request into a rigid command or reach for a keyboard.
But the headline needs one qualification: Meta AI has appeared in CarPlay while remaining unavailable to some accounts. Five apps have added support; that does not mean every driver can open all five and immediately start talking.
Claude Brings CarPlay Chatbots to Five
Anthropic’s latest iPhone update adds a straightforward CarPlay experience: begin a new voice conversation or return to a recent chat. The reported Claude integration places those choices inside the simplified dashboard interface rather than reproducing the full mobile app.
That continuity could be particularly useful for someone who already uses Claude regularly. A conversation does not have to begin again simply because the setting has changed from a desk to a parked car or a journey.
Claude’s arrival also makes the category feel less experimental. ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Grok established an earlier presence, while Meta AI recently joined the lineup. There is now a broader choice of familiar services rather than one chatbot acting as a demonstration of what CarPlay might eventually support.
This is not a reason to install all five. An assistant that already understands the conversation you want to continue may be more convenient than another app with a different account, unfamiliar controls, and an empty chat history.
Image Credit: Grok / X
Meta AI Still Has an Access Catch
Meta AI is the entry readers should approach with the most caution about availability. Reports describe its icon appearing on the CarPlay screen, only for the app to display a notice that the experience is not supported for that account.
Coverage of the limited Meta AI rollout also notes that moving to a paid account did not necessarily remove the restriction. Paying solely to unlock CarPlay would therefore be a poor assumption.
An icon and a working service are different things. The first shows that the app includes a CarPlay interface; the second depends on whether the provider has enabled access.
If Meta AI opens normally on the iPhone but refuses to work on the dashboard, that account-specific message is important. Repeatedly reconnecting the cable or resetting the vehicle’s infotainment system is unlikely to resolve a restriction controlled by the service.
What CarPlay Chatbots Actually Do
The useful distinction is between discussing something and making the car do something.
A conversational assistant can help explain an unfamiliar subject, work through an idea, or answer follow-up questions. You might ask for a plain-English explanation of a concept mentioned in a podcast, practice a short introduction, or explore ideas for a weekend project.
Those are different requests from changing a destination, calling a contact, or adjusting a vehicle setting. A chatbot’s ability to describe an action should not be mistaken for permission to perform it.
Apple recognizes voice-based conversational apps as a supported CarPlay category, alongside separate categories for navigation, audio, messaging, and driving tasks. Developers must build an appropriate CarPlay experience; an ordinary iPhone chatbot does not automatically qualify simply because it has a microphone button.
The distinction also helps set expectations about the screen. A dashboard conversation should not become an invitation to read paragraphs, inspect generated images, or manage a complicated workspace while driving.
For everyday use, short questions make more sense than elaborate assignments. Asking for three talking points is manageable. Dictating a detailed business proposal while negotiating traffic is a task better saved for somewhere stationary.
ChatGPT Has Clear Requirements and Limits
OpenAI’s CarPlay support documentation confirms availability across all ChatGPT plans, globally, on supported iPhones running iOS 26.4 or later. The latest ChatGPT app and a CarPlay-compatible vehicle are required.
Its interface supports starting a voice conversation, returning to recent or pinned chats, and accessing projects. However, OpenAI explicitly says the CarPlay version cannot access maps, vehicle information, or live location, and cannot control the car or other apps.
That rules out assuming it knows which intersection you are approaching or can change a route because you discussed a destination.
These requirements also mean ChatGPT’s CarPlay support is not something that requires waiting for iOS 27. Readers already using compatible software can check the existing app without installing an upcoming operating-system beta.
Choosing an Assistant Without Adding Dashboard Clutter
There is little value in treating the car as a place to conduct a five-way AI comparison. Try the services while parked, then keep the one that suits the conversations you actually want to have.
Listen for how clearly an assistant answers, whether it understands follow-up questions, and how easily a conversation can be stopped. A response that feels impressive on a laptop may be exhausting when spoken through car speakers for several minutes.
Ask for shorter answers when needed. “Explain that in two sentences” is often a more useful instruction in this setting than requesting a comprehensive overview.
For work-related conversations, consider who else is in the vehicle before resuming a saved chat. A colleague’s name, a client discussion, or a personal detail can become audible to passengers even when the phone remains untouched.
The presence of an app inside CarPlay should not be treated as approval to share confidential information with its provider. Keep employer rules and the service’s own account settings in mind before discussing business material.
Voice Quality Can Depend on the Car
A disappointing voice experience is not always a sign that the AI service misunderstood the question. OpenAI notes that CarPlay audio depends on the vehicle’s microphones, speakers, and echo cancellation. The same app can therefore sound or behave differently across cars.
Before abandoning an assistant because it repeatedly misses words, test it while parked with the cabin quiet. That makes it easier to distinguish a microphone or audio-routing problem from an account restriction or an unhelpful response.
There is also a small behavior worth knowing about ChatGPT: CarPlay may reopen the last-used app when the iPhone reconnects. If a chatbot unexpectedly returns to the display on your next trip, that alone does not mean it has started a fresh conversation or begun listening.
Consumers are increasingly encountering AI-generated images on food menus such as leathery meat and bread resembling reptile skin
During a recent lunch break, Jill Sennett saw something so unappetizing she had to share it with her 26,000 X followers: Artificial intelligence-generated menu images from a Jamaican barbecue pop-up restaurant in which the meats looked like leather belts crawling with tiny beetles.
The images were reshared by more than 500 people who similarly expressed their disgust. Eating is “such an essential human experience”, said Sennett, a 37-year-old nurse in Denver. “I think it’s a bad cultural thing that restaurants are converting to these horrific, uncanny food images that are unappetizing.”
When a massive star collapses, the subsequent supernova can leave behind the star’s condensed core in the form of a neutron star. Some neutron stars are also pulsars, which rotate at incredible speeds, emit beamed radio emission, and expel winds of charged particles. A pulsar’s relativistic charged-particle winds billow around the pulsar as it travels through space — often at a few hundreds of kilometers per second or faster, having received a “kick” when its progenitor star exploded. When these winds interact with the surrounding supernova ejecta or the interstellar medium, the interaction creates a detectable pulsar wind nebula. The image above combines data from the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (orange) and Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (cyan) to show a pulsar wind nebula, indicated with a white rectangle, within a larger supernova remnant. Sanja Lazarević (Western Sydney University) and collaborators discovered this pulsar wind nebula, which they’ve named “Thunder” in a nod to the supernova remnant’s moniker, “Nimbus.” The cometary shape of the pulsar wind nebula suggests that the pulsar is moving quickly, traveling outward from the center of the explosion that occurred some 30,000–45,000 years ago. To learn more about the discovery and characterization of this pulsar wind nebula, check out the article linked below.
Citation
“EMU Discovery of Thunder: A Bow-Shock PWN Powered by PSR J1631–4722 Escaping the Nimbus SNR (G336.7+0.5),” S. Lazarević et al 2026 ApJ1007 159. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae7f11
Well-preserved bones have often been found in submerged caves, but interpreting how they accumulated and what happened to them afterward has been difficult. Researchers have had limited tools for determining the environmental processes that alter remains over time.
With help from specialist cave divers from the Cave Divers Association of Australia, Walker’s team examined animal bones recovered from Green Waterhole and Gouldens Sinkhole, two underwater cave systems near Mount Gambier, South Australia. Gouldens Sinkhole reaches 63 meters deep through a nearly 30-meter-wide shaft.
The researchers used radiocarbon dating methods on 41 specimens and examined them at various scales, starting with a visual evaluation of spatial distribution and surface wear before progressing to portable X-ray fluorescence, scanning electron microscopy, and protein analysis. Using these techniques, the researchers identified chemical residue, signs of bacterial damage, and traces of ancient DNA. The group also identified changes associated with different preservation environments by comparing submerged bones with those recovered from nearby dry caves.
Light, Algae, and Total Darkness
Light played an important role in some of the most noticeable changes to the bones. Near the cave entrances, where sunlight was available, algae and aquatic plants grew on the bone surfaces and left black biological stains, while cyanobacteria produced circular etchings and tunnels on the outer surfaces. Deeper within the caves, in areas where sunlight did not reach, the bones mostly stayed the same and retained their original characteristics.
This distinction is important because it shows that staining alone does not indicate that a bone was buried in sediment or fully submerged, as previously assumed. Instead, it shows that the bone was simply exposed to light.
A Different Kind of Damage on Dry Land
Bones from the dry sections of the cave systems showed different patterns. In the absence of water and algae, land-based bacteria penetrated the bone from within, while plant roots created long grooves on the surface as they grew in search of nutrients. These features are distinct from those observed in submerged specimens.
Cows, Kangaroos, and One Very Specific Sheep
The bones in the team’s study were not from ancient megafauna, belonging instead to cattle, kangaroos, emus, sheep, pigs, dingoes, rabbits, possums, quolls, and swamp rats. European settlers likely deposited the specimens in the caves after they arrived in the Mount Gambier region in the 1840s. DNA tests showed that one bone came from a Merino sheep.
Walker’s team built a reliable reference set by choosing bones they could date accurately and species they could clearly identify, with the aim that, going forward, this will help researchers use the same methods on older fossils that are harder to study.
A Deeper Mystery Still Submerged
The ultimate goal is to apply this framework to older material. Caves in the Mount Gambier region, such as Tank Cave and Englebrechts Cave, have yielded remains of Australia’s Pleistocene megafauna, including Diprotodon, a large marsupial similar in size to a rhinoceros, Thylacoleo carnifex, the largest known marsupial predator, and short-faced kangaroos that reached about 2 meters in height. Some of these fossils have remained undisturbed for more than 60,000 years.
Using Walker’s framework when looking at these specimens might help researchers understand how Australia’s megafauna fossils accumulated and could also provide a method for investigating factors such as human activity and environmental change that caused their extinction.
“This study has delivered the first framework for interpreting how megafauna fossils formed, survived, and changed in underwater caves,” Walker said. “It will provide archaeologists and paleontologists worldwide with a powerful new tool for reconstructing past environments and histories in these challenging conditions.”
Researchers have yet to determine whether applying the framework to much older megafauna remains will reveal similar patterns. Divers and scientists are still working to investigate the region’s submerged fossil record.
Austin Burgess is a writer and researcher with a background in sales, marketing, and data analytics. He holds an MBA, a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and a data analytics certification. His work focuses on breaking scientific developments, with an emphasis on emerging biology, cognitive neuroscience, and archaeological discoveries.
The supernova remnant W50 — nicknamed “the Manatee” because its blobby radio emission resembles an aquatic mammal floating through starry waters — harbors an extreme system at its heart. Near the center of the remnant, the microquasar SS 433 exhibits an immense pair of relativistic jets, likely powered by a stellar-mass black hole accreting material from a companion star. In the image of W50/SS 433 above, radio emission is in red, optical light is in yellow, and soft, medium, and hard X-ray emission are in green, cyan, and magenta, respectively. Brydyn Mac Intyre (University of Manitoba) and collaborators focused on the region circled above, using NuSTAR and XMM-Newton to understand the source of the X-ray emission in that region and the potential for SS 433 to accelerate particles to relativistic velocities. These observations suggest that W50/SS 433 accelerates electrons up to energies of more than 100 teraelectronvolts, and it may launch other particles into the highly sought-after petaelectronvolt range. To learn more about the particle-acceleration possibilities in this remarkable region, be sure to check out the full research article linked below.
Citation
“The Western Jet of SS 433/W50: Hard X-Ray Emission, Spectral Evolution, and Comparison to the Eastern Jet,” Brydyn Mac Intyre et al 2026 ApJ1006 69. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae7a47
Un désastre exceptionnel s'est produit dans l'une des plus grandes villes du Canada il y a quelques années. Un orage de grêle géante a tout pulvérisé sur son passage, à tel point que le coût des dégâts a atteint un niveau impensable.
Italian archaeologists have discovered a previously unidentified, nearly 4,000-year-old “Tomb of the Giants,” or “Giant’s Tomb,” at Carrarzu Iddia in central-western Sardinia.
The researchers behind the historic discovery said the new structure is part of a larger group of ancient, ‘enigmatic’ burial complexes on the island known as Giant’s Tombs erected by the Nuragic civilization as collective burial sites beginning around 1800 B.C. due to their megalithic structure.
Giant’s Tomb Site Features a Strategic Placement
According to Finestre sull’Arte, the newly discovered Giant’s Tomb had been covered by thick vegetation, helping it to remain hidden for nearly four millennia. However, surveyors from Sardinia’s two Superintendencies of Archaeology, Fine Arts, and Landscape were already involved in the restoration and excavation of the nuraghe located at the same site when they made the unexpected discovery.
Located at an elevation of approximately 800 yards, the newly identified Giant’s Tomb is located on the southern slope of Crastu Littu. The Italian team suspects the site “is of particular interest” due to its strategic location.
For example, the Giant’s Tomb offers a sweeping view of the Macomer plain. The location also includes a clear vantage point to observe the highlands of Abbasanta and Paulilatino, and an unobstructed view as far as the hills of the Nuoro area and the Gulf of Oristano. The team said this view likely conveys the site’s importance within the wider settlement network of Nuragic Sardinia.
Clearing the Dense Vegetation Reveals Striking Details
After identifying and surveying the new Giant’s Tomb’s location, the two project leaders worked with the landowners to clear away the dense overgrowth and earthen debris that had kept it hidden. Ironically, once the site was fully revealed, the team noted that the covering had likely helped to maintain and preserve its excellent condition over the nearly 4,000 years since its construction.
The most prominent features identified on the vast site were two large stone platforms, called protonuraghi, a sacred well, a residential settlement, and an extensive burial ground. A closer examination confirmed that the Giant’s Tomb, which is made from trachyte blocks, retained the expected architectural elements found in similar collective burial sites.
The entrance of the Giant’s Tomb features a rare two-level design.
One identifying feature is the site’s exedra preceding its entrance. According to the Italian team, this architectural component is one of the most representative aspects of previously identified Giant’s Tombs, distinguishing this “monumental” construction type clearly within that of protohistoric Sardinia
Unfortunately, the excavation revealed that some portions of the ancient site had not survived the intervening four millennia completely intact. The authorities suspect that past illegal excavations that have affected many ancient sites could be part of the cause.
Luckily, previous illegal invasions of the site did not remove everything of historical value. For example, the team found ceramic materials inside the structure that document human occupation of the site, in some cases dating back to the earliest stages of the Nuragic civilization.
Site Includes Rarely Documented Dual-Level Construction
Alongside the site’s more familiar features, the team also identified an internal feature they described as ‘rare’ for a Giant’s Tomb: a second level near the entrance. Future studies of this unusual feature may offer insights into this society’s funerary practices and its construction techniques, which the team notes are still poorly understood.
The Italian team also noted the site’s greater significance when within the larger archaeological context of Carrarzu Iddia, noting that the area has yielded traces of human use and occupation covering the times before, during, and after the Roman era.
When discussing the site’s historical significance, the Italian team pointed to the value of so many extraordinary structures and monuments concentrated within one specific area. This overlap allows researchers to chronologically date the new Giant’s Tomb and place its significance within the wider context of the Island’s inhabitants.
Christopher Plain is a Science Fiction and Fantasy novelist and has spent the last six years as Associate News Editor and Head Science Writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his books at plainfiction.com, or email him at christopher@thedebrief.org
As AI continues to help the world of work evolve, more and more roles are increasingly embracing the technology in a bid to improve efficiency and value for money.
Perhaps nowhere is that more important than procurement - often a neglected area of interest, it plays a vital role for businesses across all industries, and has proved ripe for AI innovation so far.
We spoke to Amy Worth, Director Amazon Business UK and Public Sector Customers EU, to find out more.
AI is becoming increasingly embedded in procurement. Where are you seeing AI-powered purchasing insights deliver the greatest value for organisations today?
AI is helping procurement teams move beyond simply processing transactions to making faster, more informed decisions. Many organisations face increasing pressure to do more with fewer resources, making data-driven insights more valuable than ever. Yet, a fifth of decision-makers say they lack systems to monitor and manage risk effectively.
AI can help to address that by offering better visibility into purchasing activity to identify spending trends, spot anomalies within the supply chain, and uncover savings opportunities. And by having AI embedded into everyday procurement workflows, teams spend less time searching for information and more time focusing on supplier relationships and strategic decision-making.
How can better purchasing visibility help organisations identify savings opportunities while strengthening spend governance?
Organisations can't control what they can't see, so having a clear view of purchasing activity is essential for identifying savings opportunities and maintaining effective spend management. Rather than relying on manual reporting, procurement leaders increasingly need real-time insights that highlight spending patterns and flag unusual purchasing behaviour.
Tools such as Spend Visibility, which provides dashboards and visual analysis to easily track orders, spend and compliance can help organisations get a much clearer understanding of purchasing activity and help uncover savings opportunities.
Many organisations are looking to simplify purchasing and reduce supplier complexity. How can this help build more resilient supply chains?
In order to build resilience in supply chains, it’s important to have the right procurement foundations in place before challenges arise, so businesses have the flexibility to respond quickly when disruptions occur. Reducing unnecessary complexity and simplifying purchasing is key and helps create that agility.
We help businesses streamline processes, improve visibility and make it easier to source from trusted suppliers, while also enabling them to maintain access to a broad supplier network which gives organisations greater choice when circumstances change.
As business buying continues to evolve, what do you see as the biggest priorities for procurement leaders over the next few years?
Procurement leaders are balancing a wider set of priorities than ever before. That means alongside managing costs and improving operational efficiency, they're also expected to strengthen supply chain resilience, support sustainability goals and provide better insights to help inform wider business decisions.
It’s not as easy to manage all these priorities at once, and having access to reliable data becomes more important than ever, as it allows you to use the technology available to help make the right purchase decisions to meet these competing objectives.
Looking ahead, what role do you think AI will play in helping procurement teams move beyond cost control to become more strategic business partners?
AI has the potential to fundamentally reshape the role of procurement by moving the focus to more strategic work. At Amazon Business, we see AI as a tool that removes friction and administration rather than replacing expertise, by helping organisations analyse purchasing data more effectively, identify opportunities more quickly and help make better-informed decisions.
With that friction removed, procurement professionals will be able to focus on building supplier relationships, improving resilience and creating long-term value for their organisations.
What is AI good for? It's a question I get asked and ask myself almost every day. Unlike a wrench, hammer, or screwdriver, which are each good for one or two tasks, AI is amorphous and intimidating in its breadth. It seems capable of almost anything, especially as it changes and grows more intelligent. People pump it up as a do-it-all wonder, and yet, the question remains: what would I do with it?
Often, I find the answer to that question in the moment. For instance, as a partially color-blind person, I struggle to match clothing. Now, I often ask Gemini. I'll take my iPhone 17 Pro Max, open Gemini, turn on Gemini Live, pick out a shirt or pants (or both), and ask if they go together or which option is best. I always get an answer and, honestly, I usually follow the uncomplicated AI-generated advice.
Success in one area of your life with technology usually leads you to try it in another, especially with the ever-fungible AI.
In my house, I'm known as the risk taker, at least when it comes to food. "Best by" is a suggestion. "Use before,' is friendly advice. My family often blanches at my aged food consumption habits. Yes, I'll eat that five-day-old steak. Those English Muffins expired two weeks ago? Slide them over.
Enter the risk-taker
I know, it's not great, and when it was lunchtime this weekend I slid the week-plus-old store-bought-and-made chicken salad from the fridge and considered making a sandwich.
Staring at the "made on" date as if my gaze might rearrange the figures, I realized that I might be taking a risk. So I opened the container and sniffed the still spry-looking salad. It's at moments like this that I wonder, "What am I doing? Does my nose really know the difference between safe and stale or, more importantly, safe and decidedly turned?" I can tell you with some confidence: it does not.
Still, having grown up in a house where money was tight and you rarely threw anything away, I was hesitant to dump this half-a-pound of chicken salad (slightly turned or not).
I stood there in my kitchen for a minute, weighing my options and thinking that slightly sour chicken salad might not, with the right toast, be that bad.
Then I looked at my phone, lying face down on the counter, but surely judging me.
I would ask Gemini.
Putting Gemini on the menu
After launching the app, I turned on Gemini Live and pointed the camera at the open container. "Hey, this chicken salad was made on 8/1. Do you think it's still good?" I asked hopefully.
Gemini thought for a moment and then responded, but not in the way I expected.
Before giving me the answer, Gemini launched into what sounded a bit like one of those disclaimers for an Ozempic TV commercial:
"This information is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition."
Clearly, I struck a nerve. I only asked about the chicken salad, not if I should have a kidney removed.
I get it. If I'd asked this question a couple of years ago, Gemini might've launched right into an analysis, but concerns about AI accuracy and understanding of human needs and context have risen since the emergence of generative AI. Sure, it's way smarter and less likely to give you false or hallucinated information, but it's also, well, not a doctor or even a dietician.
A recent Gallup poll found that more than 25% of Americans are using AI for health info or advice, and of them, more than half query AI for health-related advice and analysis before visiting a doctor. The problem is that AI is not a medical professional, and while it can dig through the billions of health- and medical-related bits stored online, it doesn't have a medical license. It can't understand or treat your various maladies.
In my case, though, Gemini drew a long thin line from my seemingly innocuous question about chicken salad freshness to a potentially incorrect answer, my possible gastric emergency, and a potential lawsuit against Google and Gemini brought on my behalf by my surviving family members.
Look, food poisoning isn't usually fatal, at least according to Healthline, but it is yucky and uncomfortable. I think Gemini was just trying to avoid me taking its word as law on this topic and a potentially bad outcome for both of us.
I'm still hungry
But what about eating this rapidly warming chicken salad?
After the voluminous disclaimer, Gemini got to the heart of the matter:
"According to food safety guidelines, chicken salad should be stored in the refrigerator for only three to four days. Since this chicken salad was made on August 1st and today is August 9th, it is no longer safe to eat and should be discarded."
The answer, based less on the looks of this chicken salad and more on general advice that I often ignore, ultimately had the desired result.
You and my family will be pleased to know I took Gemini's advice, threw out the chicken salad, and made myself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Naturally, I asked Gemini's opinion:
"Yes, absolutely! A PB&J is a much better and safer option right now.
Peanut butter and jelly have a significantly longer shelf life and aren't prone to the rapid bacterial growth that affects meat-based, mayonnaise-heavy dishes like chicken salad. It's a classic, risk-free, and delicious backup plan. Enjoy your lunch!"
Researchers found that dexamethasone eye drops may reduce the risk that retinopathy of prematurity advances to the treatment stage. For babies born extremely early, abnormal blood vessel growth in the retina can threaten their sight before they leave the hospital. Researchers in Sweden have now completed the world’s first randomized clinical trial testing whether cortisone [...]
Plus d'un étudiant sur deux arrive à l'université déjà fragilisé. Une enquête menée auprès de 3 000 primo-entrants dresse trois profils de santé très différents. Et met à mal une idée tenace : celle du programme sportif unique, censé convenir à tout le monde.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is believed to have published several AI-generated reports between 2024 and 2026
The reports included various AI hallucinations, fabricated citations, and fake footnotes, which were identified by the GPTZero AI detection tool
PwC is one of the world’s largest accounting firms
Accountancy and auditing giant PricewaterhouseCoopers is alleged to have published at last four AI-generated or enhanced reports over the past three years.
An investigation by the GPTZero team found the reports – which make inaccurate and false claims – were published by PwC Middle East between 2024 and 2026, and were intended to act as thought leadership pieces.
Various indicators of AI-generated links and citations have been highlighted as a result of the discovery, and while PwC has responded, there is no direct indication how this happened or if action has been taken.
Vibe citations
GPTZero may be better known as a software tool for discovering plagiarism and AI-generated content, but it also boasts an investigation team.
The work of Paul Esau, Om Ogale, and Alex Cui has highlighted several problems with the publications issued by PwC, uncovering “a pattern of irresponsible AI usage resulting in hallucinated (vibe) citations, fabricated claims, and incomprehensible drafting and formatting decisions.”
Vibe citations are hallucinated references to works that an AI-generated document cites as genuine. In some cases, specific pages may be cited, but usually the vibe citations refer to titles and authors.
They can be demonstrated as fake due to issues such as non-existence, incorrect authors, incorrect publication dates, erroneous URLs… or the citation may simply not exist, as in one case highlighted in the GPTZero report.
Not all inconsistencies are determined to be hallucinations, however, as not all meet the GPTZero team’s standard for identifying vibe coding. So, while some other references with issues may be genuine and simply poorly cited, others may still be fake, but impossible to define.
PwC’s account
The reports that PwC (and its competitors) are publishing are an attempt to position themselves as authorities on AI, and its responsible use. They seek to encourage organizations to avoid issues such as fabricated claims and vibe citations, but rather than provide advice, it has been a live demonstration in what not to do.
PwC responded to the GPTZero report by telling the Financial Times: “Consistent with our approach to responsible AI, we have quality control processes for research and content development we expect all our people to adhere to.”
Unfortunately, it seems that a better process of quality control and fact checking ahead of publishing was required for these reports, and perhaps others so far undetected.
Perhaps most concerning is the realization that PwC is not alone in this. In the past 12 months, GPTZero has documented similar issues with all the “big four” accountancy firms, with PwC joining Deloitte, EY, KPMG in this “vibes gallery” of fabricated and unchecked citations.
Think our tech is getting a little too smart for its own good? You're not alone.
In the past few weeks, TechRadar brought you three key updates on the invasion of your privacy without consent, owing to the AI learning models nestled in our gadgets and appliances.
In case you missed the latest missives, new LG TVs can record you in the background and will ask you to notify anyone who comes into your home, to comply with "wiretapping" laws. Next up, Nothing's new earbuds offer a 'squeeze the stems to record calls' feature being called Audio Snapshot, which is tantamount to phone-hacking in cute packaging. And finally, there's the continued backlash over Meta's AI glasses. Despite the social media giant implementing a feature that stops recordings if a wearer tampers with the front-firing light, hatred of these and other smart shades (oft-renamed 'pervert glasses' by the general public) has led to people calling for camera-less glasses.
So, in a world where our glasses can watch, our earbuds can hear, our speakers can speak and our TVs are a little too closely invested in our lives for comfort, how much more will we allow our tech to intrude before enough is enough — and what can we do to regain some privacy?
'I see this as part of a bigger pattern that is a push by technology and other forces to normalize consumer surveillance'
Lauren Hendry Parsons, Mozilla Foundation (Director, Communications)
(Image credit: Everyone Hates Elon)
Your tech will see you now
Lauren Hendry Parsons is a seasoned advocate for digital rights and a gifted speaker in making these complex issues accessible. She is a director within the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, helping to make the organization's push for a "technology future that serves and is shaped by the people who use it" a message that resonates on a global scale.
Luckily, she has agreed to talk to me on the growing concern over surveillance tech's prevalence in our lives.
Parsons states that in order to zoom in on these issues, we need first to zoom out. "I see this as part of a bigger pattern," she begins, "that is a push by technology and other forces to normalize consumer surveillance — surveillance of people by other people — and that's something that we're seeing cropping up a lot."
So what's changed — after all, recording devices have existed for some time? The answer is the growing number of places where such surveillance is becoming normal.
"It's something that started in the Internet of Things home devices," she says. "You might talk to a smart speaker, or talk actively to another product that is doing your bidding — but it was usually tied to a place.
"Now, we're seeing the normalization of surveillance-chic behaviors, where fashion influencers are sharing their own Ring doorbells to show off their outfit of the day.
"That moves surveillance from something fixed inside a home, where people can at least see the object and talk about it, to something that's constantly moving through every space and every conversation."
And it's being packaged in pink earbuds, chic sunglasses or fun doorbells? Parsons agrees: "The chicification of surveillance to me is deeply concerning."
'It moves surveillance from something fixed inside a home, to something that's constantly moving through every space and every conversation'
Lauren Hendry Parsons
Who counts as the user — and should they really have control?
I want to talk about Meta's AI glasses and the involvement of Kylie Jenner in the ad campaign, especially when women's safety (regarding non-consensual surveillance and distribution of such footage) has been listed as a key concern.
I mention the fact that when speaking to several male colleagues about the benefits of such glasses (rather than the concerns), not one of them mentioned what I suspect all women thought: that wearing such glasses might mean filming your potential attacker, and that would be a very good thing.
"There are absolutely situations where people might want the convenience these products provide," Parsons agree. "Being able to translate something on the go or take a quick snapshot without getting your phone out. For people with disabilities or limited capacity, these tools could be genuinely useful.
"But I don't see the trade-offs being clearly explained. I don't see meaningful ways to opt out. Even if these companies have perfect data handling processes and perfect privacy records, the risk is being transferred to the consumer instead of being held by the tech company."
Parsons mentions one of the core issues at Mozilla Foundation: privacy by design. "Privacy by design, which is what we recommend as best practice, means products should be private by default," she says. "And that has to include bystanders.
"Technology companies talk about giving the user control, but who's counting as the user?
"With smart glasses, televisions, and recording earbuds, the purchaser isn't the only person affected. Just as children are affected by smart speakers or passengers by dashcams in cars, the person across the table or on the other end of the call is also a data subject, even though they have no access to the controls and no real way to opt out.
"True privacy by design must protect both the person operating the device and the people involuntarily brought into its data collection environment.
"When something (with surveillance tech built in) is fixed in your home or office, you can at least choose not to go there. You can suggest meeting somewhere else. That's difficult and has social consequences, but it's possible.
"If it's something someone is unobtrusively wearing in their ear or on their glasses, or something you don't even know they have, opting out becomes almost impossible."
(Image credit: Nothing (app screen grabs by Future) )
'No surprises, genuine user control, limited data collection, sensible settings, and multiple layers of protection. These examples show what happens when products fall short of those principles'
Lauren Hendry Parsons
I ask how we might regain some agency here, or at least get a handle on our privacy regarding AI glasses, call-recording earbuds and all-seeing TVs. Parsons points to the work she does.
"Mozilla's privacy principles are useful here," she says. "They're about no surprises, genuine user control, limited data collection, sensible settings, and multiple layers of protection. These examples show what happens when products fall short of those principles."
Another thing Parsons is keen to impress upon TechRadar is central to her work: understanding the trade-offs. "I don't see how everyone on the phone can understand those trade-offs and give informed consent," she says.
"The only way that could happen is if this (the recording of everything we do) became such a standard operating procedure that everyone expects it, because everyone has it. At that point, we would have completely accepted constant surveillance as the norm.
"I don't think the answer is necessarily to prohibit recording technology. It's to stop presenting recording as an ordinary, consequence-free convenience."
'I don't think the answer is necessarily to prohibit recording technology. It's to stop presenting recording as an ordinary, consequence-free convenience'
Lauren Hendry Parsons
She mentions translation in AI glasses as an example: "Companies could show translations without collecting or storing the underlying data, but we know that's not what's happening."
Another watch-word in Parsons' work is 'friction', and how disproportionately easy it has become to monitor, film and record secretly and without consent.
"Features with serious privacy implications should involve equal and proportionate friction," she says. "The more sensitive the activity, the stronger the consent mechanism should be."
I mention that when testing a set of earbuds recently, a simple beep to signify that recording has begun is the only notification the caller on the other end of the line receives. Parsons believes concern there is valid.
"Notification is not consent," she says. "We've become used to surveillance in places like train stations and public spaces because it's framed as being for safety. But I'd hate to see that extended to person-to-person interactions."
'Notification is not consent. We've become used to surveillance in places like train stations — but I'd hate to see that extended to person-to-person interactions'
Lauren Hendry Parsons
I ask if perhaps people should simply get OK with omnipresent filming or data collection by individuals and wider companies, since it seems so hard to avoid? Parsons' answer is emphatic: "That's deeply problematic."
"We're seeing the expectation that people should be comfortable being filmed all the time. Even terms and conditions often state that by attending, you agree to being photographed or filmed for marketing purposes. The default is that your data is collected unless you make the effort to opt out or avoid the event entirely. Again, that's deeply problematic.
"The diminishment of privacy is cumulative. It's one thing to have a fixed camera in a train station. It's another to be filmed by multiple people in different places without your consent, or to have your audio collected."
'It's one thing to have a fixed camera in a train station. It's another to be filmed by multiple people in different places without your consent'
Lauren Hendry Parsons
'The burden of this issue is not distributed equally'
Parsons reads me a quote from one of her own features, and it cuts to the core of the agency, consent and privacy debate better than anything I could ever try to surmise.
"The burden of this issue is not distributed equally, and the risk of ambient recording will fall disproportionately on people who already have less control in a situation," she says. "That includes workers, children, parents, patients, tenants, domestic abuse survivors, and protesters. This makes vulnerable populations more vulnerable."
Parsons mentions a novel but initially counter-intuitive solution suggested by some prominent female content creators. Instead of shunning Meta's glasses (or playing Disney songs if you realize you're being filmed, because Disney's music is better protected than women's lives), the idea is that women do wear them, specifically to film men when they start to behave in an inappropriate or predatory manner, then upload the footage everywhere. The thinking is that these products might then get regulated very quickly.
"If women collectively used them in that way — in a kind of, let's call it a neo-Me Too movement — I'd put money on consent issues being addressed much more quickly," Parsons says.
"The issue isn't simply that these products can record. It's that the examples you gave (the earbuds, the glasses, the TV that records in the background) all prioritize effortless capture over meaningful consent, when there are other ways to do it.
"The person operating the product gets all the convenience and control, while everyone else gets a light, a beep, or a legal disclaimer. That's an unacceptable imbalance.
"Recording has many legitimate and valuable purposes, but companies should be asking how to build consent into the infrastructure, minimize what's captured, and protect bystanders as rigorously as they protect the user.
"The false dilemma is, 'Do you just not want this technology?' But we shouldn't have to choose between useful technology and privacy.
"Preserving both means companies need to treat consent as a product requirement, not something buried in their terms and conditions."
'Companies need to treat consent as a product requirement, not something buried in their terms and conditions'
Lauren Hendry Parsons
Facial recognition (and how to make it disappear)
I ask Parsons about Mozilla Foundation's stance on digital facial recognition, a highly controversial feature that our phones and smart glasses are technically capable of. Although the big brands have so far disabled or restricted the software on glasses, there are strong suggestions that hackers have managed to scoot around it.
She mentions the rise of anti-surveillance fashion; garments that make their wearer invisible to the algorithm and thus can thwart the surveillance tech stuffed into our handsets and wearables.
"Looking ahead, we have two things happening simultaneously," Parsons says. "We have vastly increased computing power and data analytics capabilities that allow us to store and analyze more information than ever before, and we have recording devices embedded everywhere in increasingly unobtrusive ways. That combination is worrying.
"One of the brands we spoke to, Capable Design, explained it well: 'The problem with surveillance technology is citizens don't have a possibility in the physical world to opt out. In the digital space, we can say yes or no to cookies. In the physical world, we don't have this option. We wanted to create physical protection that would allow citizens to give their consent or not.'
"It feels as though we're being forced to pick sides: either you're comfortable with surveillance or you're actively trying to avoid it. Again, it comes back to the false choice between privacy and convenience because technology developers aren't prepared to give us both.
"I think these efforts are people trying to take back some agency. There's a feeling that all of this is inevitable.
"Particularly in the UK, where social norms and politeness are strong (this interview is taking place in the UK), I worry we're going to politely accept our way into a surveillance state because people feel uncomfortable challenging others or assume this is an inevitable progression."
'Particularly in the UK, where social norms and politeness are strong, I worry we're going to politely accept our way into a surveillance state'
Lauren Hendry Parsons
Our time together is nearly up, but Parsons wants to talk just a little more about the future. "I want to say this loudly because it's a core Mozilla Foundation belief: the future of technology is not inevitable," she says.
"These are choices being made by people within companies. They could choose a different path.
"That's why Mozilla Foundation funds projects and people who challenge the status quo. We're investing in positive alternatives because opting out as a consumer can feel almost impossible.
"We need companies making better choices, regulators setting stronger requirements, and a greater appreciation that friction isn't always a bad thing. A little friction can protect people, encourage creativity, and ensure meaningful consent.
"That's what I hope for the future: that we don't accept inevitability, that we invest in better technology choices, and that responsibility isn't pushed entirely onto the individual consumer at the point of use."
I want to say this loudly: the future of technology is not inevitable'
Lauren Hendry Parsons
(Image credit: William Yu)
AI another way
So, are there people within companies — even AI companies focused on "autonomous agents, edge intelligence, computer vision, and robotics" — looking to make different choices? Actually, yes.
Div Garg — CEO and Co-Founder of AGI (an AI on-device 'personal assistant' company) — is perhaps most famous for turning down a big gig at OpenAI in order to work on a "Siri that actually works" within his own startup. Fortunately, he's prepared to talk to me about the concerns surrounding the scraping (and in-cloud storage) of our personal data for AI learning.
"The debate around whether AI wearables that record our everyday lives are an invasion of privacy overlooks the fact that this technology doesn’t need the cloud whatsoever," he had said, prior to our meeting today. "It’s cheaper and easier for manufacturers, but it isn’t a necessity. Put the model on the device, and no data ever has to go beyond it."
Now, I ask him to expand. "My company hasn't cared about audience growth," he says. "We believe all AI agents and assistants should be running on-device, so the user should own the model and the data.
"What's happening now is people are typing their data into services, and companies use that data to show you ads. I think all of this can be misused to sell you more things, and we don't want that.
"AI is great, but it's only great if it's neutral and genuinely beneficial. It shouldn't become a source of revenue for corporations through people's data. That's what we're trying to change. We believe this kind of edge AI is the future, and we want to build something that's fully privacy-safe and that people can truly trust.
"We don't want people giving away their data without knowing more about it. We need the opposite approach, and I don't think enough people are thinking about this."
Garg pauses. "Maybe Apple should have been the company doing this," he adds, "but they've been lagging behind when it comes to AI".
I agree, and ask him why that might be? "No one has really taken the initiative to solve these privacy concerns. We've been holding a lot of events recently; for example, the founder of Edward AI, who built Edward before it was acquired by Google, joined us as an advisor. He believes in building the next personal operating system."
Did you know TechRadar now has membership?
(Image credit: Future)
Become a TechRadar Insider by simply clicking 'Join Now' at the top of this page. Have a question? Please email membership@techradar.com
Trust issues
Can AGI build something that's truly personal, where people trust it, and where everything lives on-device? Garg believes so but, interestingly, he doesn't see trust as the deal-breaker.
"A big thing we're proposing is almost a zero-trust approach," he says. "You don't actually have to trust the provider. If the AI model itself is guaranteed to be running on the device, then no data leaves the device. You don't have to trust that a company is telling the truth — you know because of the way it's built. That's where I think the world should be moving."
'You don't actually have to trust the provider. If the AI model itself is guaranteed to be running on the device, then no data leaves the device. You don't have to trust that a company is telling the truth'
Div Garg, CEO at AGI
The idea that brands are prioritizing AI in a product, because they know it's a buzzword, but with a more watchful eye on profit margins rather than the privacy of a user's data (and consent to capture that data) doesn't sit well — with either of us.
So why might companies try to not keep AI on-device, aside from cost issues? Does it drain your battery? Does it make a device heat up? Does it use a lot of RAM?
"I'd say you have to think outside the box," Garg says. "It requires a lot of innovation. You have to figure out how to make these models small enough to run locally.
"Modern phones (because this is where Garg sees AI, as the chief controller of your other devices) now have GPUs and processors called NPUs that can run AI models. I think the world is moving towards deploying more of these models on phones, but it's still very new.
"For example, we have a collaboration with Qualcomm. We're talking with their R&D and machine-learning teams about how our models can be highly optimized for phones. We want to make sure they don't drain your battery, cause overheating, or create other issues.
"This is a new frontier in technology, and you have to be innovative to make it work."
I ask Garg what he would say to anyone wary of adding a personalized AI model to their lives? "It depends a lot on who's making the decisions," he says.
"We want consent. We want to make sure people aren't being recorded without permission — I'm pretty sure there will be lawsuits around some of these issues in the future.
"My belief is that AI should be consensual. Even if you download a new AI app, it should ask, 'Are you OK with us collecting your data?' If someone gives consent, that's OK. But if someone says no, they shouldn't be forced into it."
On-device only
Garg is obviously only interested in an on-device AI future, but I worry that affordable convenience often wins out and that people may not understand the true benefits of such precautions.
I mention a set of headphones I tried, that offer real-time cognitive strain detection. My issue was that these cans (which were $200 cheaper than the inaugural 12-channel EEG sensor over-ears) use cloud processing in combination with on-device processing for some of the new metrics. The company didn’t reveal exactly what data was being sent to the cloud, but it had the potential to change my mind pretty drastically about using the product. What if the publishing house I work for was able to access and monitor how hard I'd been focusing throughout the work day?
Garg laughs, but only for a second.
"I think it's definitely possible, but it comes down to the developer," he concedes. "If a developer is doing something with your data or trying to collect it, that's hard to detect unless you're the operating system itself or the phone manufacturer.
"The phone company can probably detect it and tell you, but a lot of this comes down to how much you trust the people building the software. That's one reason we're so focused on the operating system.
"Right now, if you use something like Claude, you have one place where you do everything, and it connects to different services. We believe in a world where you have a single personal AI assistant connected to different devices, like the neuro-headphones you mentioned. Then you can see for yourself where the data is going because everything is connected through your own personal assistant rather than being scattered across different services."
Are we ready for unique personal AI assistants?
I mention Pete Steinberger's OpenClaw and the early adopters who tried to create their own personal AI assistant over a weekend. Does Garg think people are ready for that?
"We definitely want to make it easier," he says. "Even if you're using something like OpenClaw, you need to buy hardware, set up API keys, and do a lot of technical work. Most people don't have the patience for that, especially if they're not developers.
"We want this to work out of the box. You download an app, and it starts learning your routines. It can make proactive suggestions like, 'Would you like me to order your favorite coffee?' It's learning your habits.
"If it's all happening on-device, that solves the privacy problem because you can have personalization and all these useful features without your data leaving the device.
"Over time, your phone becomes more intelligent. It gets to know you better and becomes better at helping with the things you like to do.
"We also think this works well with smart glasses and other wearables. Your phone becomes the control center, just like an Apple Watch connects to an iPhone. The other devices become satellites connected to your phone, and the AI model lives on the phone itself."
Despite my continued reservations, it's a compelling argument. I can absolutely see a world in which a personal, on-device AI might be helpful in simplifying our lives.
I have one more question, since Garg is the visionary developer here. Is AI still essentially a loop (meaning something that is not intelligent in itself or autonomous — just very persistent at completing tasks) and does he ultimately see it moving beyond that? Or will humans always have the agency and autonomy, with AI just working in the background?
"A combination of both," he responds in an instant. "You want it to feel like collaborating with a co-worker. Depending on how much you trust it, it could manage your calendar or your emails automatically.
"It could say: 'I know you have a meeting tonight. Would you like me to help you find a restaurant? Would you like me to call a cab?' You want a system that's learning about you, but you also need trust. You need to know you're not being exploited by giving it access to your data, and that it's genuinely beneficial.
'If you use ChatGPT or Claude today, they're serving the same thing to billions of users. Everyone has the same assistant. In the future, people will want their own completely personal assistant'
Div Garg
"That's the missing piece. If you use ChatGPT or Claude today, they're serving the same thing to billions of users. Everyone has the same assistant.
"In the future, people will want their own completely personal assistant. Maybe you'll even give it a name! It'll be unique to you. You can give access to your own data because it's running on-device. You trust it, and no one else has the same AI."
Of course, myriad users already trust AI chatbots with their innermost thoughts, and even as romantic partners, so perhaps by continuing to give the tech a wide berth I'm in the minority.
Then again, it's actually not the technology I fear. It's the technology in the hands of people who seek to misuse it.
Thoughts? There's a comment section below, dearest gentle reader — and my human eyes are ready to read your human thoughts.
Login
