This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Inside soccer’s data renaissance

Imagine tuning in to the opening kickoff of a World Cup match and seeing a player intentionally kick the ball out of bounds. You may question the logic of surrendering possession seconds into a game. If you were Jesse Davis, though, you’d know that this play could be a prime setup to score.

Davis is a professor of computer science at KU Leuven in Belgium and head of its Sports Analytics Lab, which has been at the vanguard of a data awakening in soccer.

Using AI and data analytics, his team has uncovered hidden tactical patterns and challenged long-held assumptions about how the game should be played. Many of the insights hitting soccer pitches today trace back to the lab’s work.

Read the full story on how computer scientists are changing the world’s most popular sport.

—Andrew Zaleski

This story is from the next edition of our magazine. Subscribe now to get a copy when it lands! 

Why China is betting on big nuclear reactors

In China, large reactors are coming together at a stunning pace. The country has nearly doubled its nuclear fleet since 2016, reaching nearly 60 gigawatts of total power capacity. Construction started on six new reactors in 2025, and two more have begun in 2026.

It’s incredibly difficult to build the massive projects that dominate the nuclear industry today. Up-front investment can run well into the billions, and designs are complex. Yet China is moving ahead rapidly. By 2030, the country is on course to overtake both the US and the EU in installed nuclear capacity.

Find out why bigger might be better when it comes to nuclear power.

—Casey Crownhart

This story is from The Spark, our weekly newsletter giving you the inside track on all things climate. Sign upto receive it in your inbox every Wednesday.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Autonomous drones may have killed soldiers for the first time
A drone-maker said Russian troops were killed in a test. (New Scientist $)
+ The US has used a sea drone to rescue a helicopter’s crew. (NYT $)
+ Europe has a drone-filled vision for war. (MIT Technology Review)

2 Solar power has finally surpassed coal in US electricity generation
It’s the leading source of new power. (Guardian)
+ Meanwhile, Trump is increasing coal investments. (BBC)
+ The US is in a power struggle over coal. (MIT Technology Review)

3 Russia’s FSB has taken control of the country’s internet
The KGB successor now determines access. (Financial Times $)
+ Rage over the restrictions is boiling over. (NYT $)

4 OpenAI says China is fomenting dissent over AI on ChatGPT
It claims to have foundinfluence operations on the bot. (Reuters $)
+ The propaganda also targeted data centers and tariffs. (Politico $)

5 SpaceX’s listing price is expected to be revealed today
It could lead to the biggest IPO ever. (NPR)
+ And turn 4,400 employees into millionaires. (NYT $)

6 EPA scientists say they’re pushed to downplay risks of household products
They’re under pressure to alter reviews of chemicals in products. (CNN)

7 Anthropic has walked back a policy that “sabotaged” research
It would have limited Claude’s ability to develop competing AI models. (Wired $)

8 Congress wants in on the data center backlash
Members are jumping on the fervor with new policy plans. (Axios)
+ Should we be moving data centers to space? (MIT Technology Review)

9 Your search results are getting sloptimized
Companies are gaming the chatbot internet. (Atlantic $)

10 Scientists have discovered that humans prefer to walk anticlockwise
It’s a discovery that could improve crowd and evacuation management. (Guardian)

Quote of the day

“We’re the extracted and exploited colony of what is going to be one of the most highly valued entities in the world. People are going to die because of this pollution.” 

—Justin Pearson, who represents portions of Memphis in the Tennessee House of Representatives, tells Wired why his constituents are angry about the SpaceX IPO.

One More Thing

Space is all yours—for a hefty price

Space tourism is now officially a thing. But does it represent a future in which the average person could book a celestial flight and bask in the splendor of Earth from above? Or is this just another way for the ultrawealthy to flash their cash while simultaneously ignoring and exacerbating our existential problems down on the ground? 

For now, such flights remain ridiculously far beyond the financial reach of most people. They also pose risks to both the passengers and the planet. But proponents of private spaceflight argue that it provides great opportunities for science and a sense of transcendence.

Dive into the space tourism debate.

—Margaret O’Mara

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ A rare antelope species was rediscovered in a remote Kenyan forest.
+ This ingenious camping trailer pops up into a fully heated off-road bathroom.
+ Iconic internet memes are now safely preserved in the British Film Institute’s moving image archive.
+ NASA’s experimental aircraft has successfully broken the sound barrier in a big win for supersonic flight.

Google DeepMind is funding research into the potential dangers of situations where millions of different AI agents interact with each other online.

According to Rohin Shah, who directs the company’s AGI safety and alignment research, the mass-market arrival of agents that can carry out tasks without human oversight and follow instructions given to them by other agents creates a whole new class of risk.

In an effort to address this, Google DeepMind—which made agent-based tools a centerpiece of Google I/O last month—has teamed up with several other organizations to announce a $10 million funding pot for researchers to study the behavior of multi-agent systems and come up with ways to prevent unsafe scenarios. Joining Google DeepMind are Schmidt Sciences, a philanthropic foundation set up by Eric and Wendy Schmidt; ARIA, the UK government’s moonshot agency; the Cooperative AI foundation, a UK-based nonprofit research outfit; and Google’s charitable arm, Google.org.

I asked Shah and James Fox, who leads the Science of Trustworthy AI program at Schmidt Sciences, what they hope to achieve with that $10 million. It’s no small sum, but it’s dwarfed by the budgets commanded by Google DeepMind’s own research teams.

The aim is to kick-start research outside tech companies, says Shah: “The strength of academia is that it can look really quite far into the future and do the kind of work that isn’t top of mind at industry labs.”

“The main issue is that there just isn’t really a field of research for multi-agent safety yet,” he adds. “And we would like there to be.”

The concern is that as more and more AI agents get deployed and begin working together, we could hit a tipping point where imagined scenarios become real. “We see this with humanity, too,” says Shah. “Our institutions can accomplish things that no individual human can.”

Shah thinks we have a few more months to go before agents are deployed throughout the economy in numbers that make potential risks a real concern. He wants to get ahead of that moment.

Risky business

What risks are we talking about, exactly? The possibilities that Shah and Fox have in mind mostly boil down to supercharged versions of bad things that happen on the internet already: scams, prompt injections (where an AI agent is fed malicious instructions, turning it into a self-guiding piece of malware), other forms of cyberattack. We look at what humans do now and ask what the agent version of that would be, says Shah.  

“We’ve got this digital commons that is integral to how society works, and you really want to ensure that this doesn’t descend into just absolute anarchy,” says Fox.

(I asked Shah if they were considering any worst-case scenarios more on the doomer end of the spectrum, such as widespread economic collapse. “Certainly not if we’re talking by the end of the year,” he said. That’s only six months away! He laughed. “Okay, a while after that.”)

Shah and Fox both think that the only way to understand what might happen when large numbers of multi-agent systems interact with each other is to run realistic simulations. They want researchers to drop AI agents into sandboxes and study what they do.

You can’t predict what’s going to happen by studying single agents, or even small groups of agents, in isolation. You can’t assume that AI agents underpinned by LLMs will always act rationally, says Fox. And the complexity comes from having huge numbers of interactions at once.

Some researchers, including a team at Google DeepMind, have argued that artificial general intelligence (if possible at all) could come not from a single super-smart model but from a kind of agent hive mind, where the capabilities of the whole add up to more than the sum of its parts.  

Lack of trust

Google DeepMind is not the only top AI firm warning about the risks of the technology it is building. A couple of weeks ago, Anthropic published guidelines for deploying AI agents based on an approach to cybersecurity known as zero trust, which starts with the assumption that a computer system is vulnerable, an agent is an attacker, and a breach will happen.

Refael Angel, cofounder and CTO of Akeyless, a cybersecurity firm based in Tel Aviv, agrees that understanding the new risks introduced by agent-based systems is crucial.  

Every approach to security in the past has assumed that the machine in question was software written by a human, doing fixed things on fixed paths, says Angel: “An agent breaks all of those assumptions. It reasons, it improvises, and it can be hijacked by a single sentence buried in a document it was asked to read.”

Angel welcomes this new funding. “No single lab should author the safety standards everyone else has to trust,” he says. But he cautions that safety researchers can overlook boring problems that are already here in favor of more exotic hypothetical ones.

And yet, Fox notes, risks that were hypothetical a few years ago are now very real: “The future’s come more quickly than perhaps expected.”

In 2018, after nearly two decades working in Big Pharma, chemist Tim Cernak was ready to put his skills to a new use. 

For Merck, he’d developed precision therapies for cancer, HIV, and diabetes that could target disease while minimizing harm to healthy cells. But as a lifelong nature lover, he was increasingly concerned about the health of ecosystems and wondered whether his expertise could transfer. Animals, he learned, are often treated with pharmaceuticals formulated for humans, which affect them like old-school cancer drugs: Though intended to kill abnormal cells, they’re indiscriminate in the harm they cause. For instance, the standard of care for frogs infected with a deadly skin infection is itraconazole, an antifungal that is often lethal for the amphibian.

Cernak imagines a world where “the patient was always meant to be a frog in the first place, from the beginning to the end.” Now an associate professor at the University of Michigan, he’s worked on all types of creatures, from a Gila monster with a parasite to bald eagles with avian flu. Here’s what it takes to treat nature’s patients.

Experience with protein-modeling software 

Developing any type of drug is extremely expensive, failure-prone, and slow-going. But AI can speed up the entire drug-­design workflow, says Cernak. Google DeepMind’s AlphaFold model allows him to visualize a mutant protein’s three-­dimensional structure on a screen—rather than growing it on a plate, the traditional methodology—and then quickly generate possible new drugs that would latch onto that structure. The next step is to run a series of reactions and see which potential drugs may be effective; with the help of robots in the lab, he can speed through as many as 1,500 per day. 

Curiosity about creatures of all sizes

Cernak isn’t selective with his patients. For example, he worked on a treatment for loggerhead sea turtles after he was shocked to learn that the iconic species suffered from contagious tumors. He feels especially drawn to creatures that have helped humans, like the Gila monster, whose hormones have informed popular weight-loss drugs like Ozempic. And it’s not just animals; he’s also developing a precision insecticide to treat hemlock trees under attack from invasive species. 

A pioneering spirit

Cernak refers to this new discipline as “conservation chemistry.” It’s a combination of words with a loaded history, from DDT decimating US bald eagle populations in the 1960s, to cow painkillers killing millions of Indian vultures in the ’90s. He recognizes the risks, but Cernak feels that excluding chemists from conservation is a missed opportunity. 

“I’m just sick of looking at the chemical tools that are used in the conservation space, and they’re not cutting-edge,” he says. “It’s like, how do you have this super high-tech engine over here for making human medicines, while we’re living through a mass extinction?” 

Anna Gibbs is a journalist who covers the intersection between science and society.

Imagine tuning in to the opening kickoff of a World Cup match and seeing a player intentionally send the ball all the way down the pitch and right out of bounds on the opponent’s end. Casual fans might scratch their heads. Where’s the logic in surrendering possession seconds into a game? If you were Jesse Davis, though, you’d know that this play could be a prime setup to score. 

Davis is a professor of computer science at KU Leuven in Belgium and head of its Sports Analytics Lab, which has been at the vanguard of a data awakening in soccer since its inception more than a decade ago. Though the research group brings machine-­learning models to bear on a variety of sports—including basketball, volleyball, and field hockey—nowhere is its impact felt more than on the soccer pitch. 

Davis and his team of researchers employ advanced data analytics to reveal a range of (beg your pardon) game-changing findings that are shifting pro clubs’ decision-making. “His lab is the most influential sports analytics lab in soccer,” says Hugo Rios-Neto, data recruitment lead for Royal Sporting Club Anderlecht in Belgium. They’ve helped teams better evaluate their rosters, conceived ways to assess how efficient (or not) strategies are, and developed algorithms that uncover hidden tactical patterns.

Like, for instance, the value of kicking the ball out of bounds close to the goal and letting your opponent throw it back into play—a move that’s been popping up in some of the world’s top leagues over the last few years.

To make the statistical argument for this seemingly counterproductive move, Davis’s group built a training data set composed of more than 1.4 million passes and some 60,000 throw-ins—partly from the 2022 World Cup. They used tree ensemble models (essentially a mashup of decision trees) to simulate the tactic. The conclusion, which the researchers presented in a 2024 paper under the apt title “Boot it”: When the ball is in the middle third of the pitch, kicking it out of bounds on your opponents’ side of the field can put you within 10 actions (think passes and dribbles) of a goal. That can be a big deal in a game that has 1,500 or more actions per match and very little scoring. The idea, Davis explains, is that you’re setting yourself up to recover the ball in an advantageous situation.

Beyond providing discrete game-day insights, Davis also occupies a unique niche in the world of sports analytics, where many clubs now hire their own internal data teams to maintain a competitive edge. He makes most of his research freely available via open-source analytics tools, but the academic life also affords him the freedom to tackle more complex problems—like standardizing in-game data, a project that will make it easier to parse game footage and come up with winning strategies. 

---

Davis, 45, grew up in Wisconsin and spent his childhood enraptured by basketball and (American) football. Soccer was largely a nonentity to him until college, when the 2002 World Cup—in which Brazil famously swept the tournament—reeled him in. But the notion of going on to dissect the sport never crossed his mind. His doctoral studies in computer science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison had him working with radiologists to analyze mammography reports. 

In October 2010, he joined KU Leuven as a computer science professor looking at the intersection of AI and health care, with a focus on monitoring athletic performance. His research team studied, for instance, combining things like heart rate with other metrics to determine whether someone was overtraining. They also dove into the biomechanics of running.

The tactical and technical aspects of sports, and soccer specifically, became the subject of Davis’s professorial work when he hired Jan Van Haaren, an engineering student focused on artificial intelligence and a self-described soccer fanatic. He wondered if data analysis could be used to study things like passing, shooting, and ball progression—metrics the game was only just beginning to digitally crunch at the time. 

Davis realized that machine learning and other artificial-intelligence tools lent themselves well to the complexity, fluidity, and speed of soccer.

You need not be well versed in the moneyball-ization of pro sports to see that it’s relatively easy to apply deep statistical work to baseball or basketball. You can isolate actions like jump shots and assign value to ones taken close or far away. Soon a basketball coach realizes that a player who can’t make a layup, but shoots roughly as well from the three-point line as on mid-range jumpers, might as well go for the shot that gets more points. 

Soccer, by comparison, seemed like a poor candidate for that kind of analysis. “The vast, vast majority of actions really don’t lead to the outcome of a goal or even a shot,” says Rios-Neto. “So it’s hard to elaborate or derive a winning strategy from the data.”

But Van Haaren’s love of the sport, and Davis’s love of sports in general, inspired them to try. Over time, Davis realized that machine learning and other artificial-intelligence tools lent themselves well to the complexity, fluidity, and speed of soccer. In 2014, he officially stood up the Sports Analytics Lab. 

With a stable of about 10 students and postdocs at any one time, the lab began laying what Van Haaren calls the “intellectual foundations of how the game is analyzed today.” The researchers picked apart in-game actions, and suddenly they were valuing ball possession, penalty-kick strategy (aim for the center), and the merits of long shots on goal (take them). “One of the trends that’s been in soccer over the last five to 10 years is that the number of long shots has dramatically increased,” says Davis. “What the data let you do is really quantify what the probabilities of those things are.”

---

In the years since Davis and his team started untangling individual soccer tactics, their ideas have started to permeate clubs across Europe, like Belgium’s Club Brugge KV, as well as national soccer organizations in the US and Belgium. “The work coming out of the lab is genuinely useful,” Rios-Neto says, “and clubs apply it for a range of purposes.” 

Van Haaren, who’s now the director of football intelligence at Club Brugge, is one of many in-house analysts adapting the lab’s work to the pro game. “Our collaboration with the lab is centered on translating [the team’s] football philosophy into measurable, data-driven outputs,” he says. When a club wants to assess, say, how well a center-back is moving the ball down the field, it aims to tally how many times the ball ended up in the part of the pitch closest to the opposing team’s goal. It does this by combining event data, which records actions on the ball, with tracking data, which records player movement. This shows how well players fulfill their roles, which is useful in development and also when scouting for new recruits. 

Davis’s lab, meanwhile, is continuing to ask questions that apply to the game writ large. To determine if there’s an advantage to taking more long shots, for instance, postdoc Maaike Van Royand colleagues modeled the behavior of English Premier League teams using a Markov decision process—a computational framework in which some actions are under a person’s control while others are random. (That duality is particularly useful for soccer, where movement can feel anything but linear.) The results, presented in 2021 at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, showed that Chelsea could gain 1.6 more goals per season by shooting from distance 20% more often.

Despite those kinds of insights from Davis’s lab and similar research groups that have sprung up over the last decade at institutions like MIT and Carnegie Mellon, soccer somewhat lags behind many other pro sports when it comes to collecting the data that analysts need. All teams employ people to watch video and use software to annotate specific in-game tactics—the details of which may make sense only to the most devoted fans. It’s a mostly manual process, one that can take up to six hours per game. “It’s a complete nightmare as a data analyst to work with,” says Davis.

So while the lab plays on, Davis has also joined up with researchers from other institutions in an effort to standardize data across all matches. The group is experimenting with transformers, the neural network architecture that underpins large language models like ChatGPT. If you can bring that to the world of soccer, a human game annotator could tag a tactic—a three-on-two breakaway, say—a few times, and that could train the model on the concept so it could tag subsequent instances on its own. “There’s been a lot of progress,” Davis says. “But it still remains quite hard.”

If we’re keeping score, though, the lab’s work has already made the analytics process easier thanks to open-source tools it’s put out there—some of which clock thousands of downloads a month. One is a framework called VAEP, a model that assesses the effects of all actions on the ball. Another is an xG (expected goals) model, which looks at the quality of a scoring chance. Still another is a package to synchronize event data with tracking data. “Lots of people in industry use our code in their daily workflows,” Davis says.

For him, the practical application of having their code out there is important, but the real (ahem) kick is watching theory become practice. As he says, “I’m really motivated to solve problems that arise in real settings and see my work have an impact.” 

Andrew Zaleski is a contributing writer at Washingtonian magazine. 

It’s a tale of two nuclear industries.

In China, large reactors are coming together at a stunning pace. The country has nearly doubled its nuclear fleet since 2016, reaching nearly 60 gigawatts of total power capacity. The new facilities are nearly all gigawatt-scale pressurized-water reactors.

Meanwhile, the US has built just two reactors in that time—Unit 3 and Unit 4 at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. Smaller reactors are attracting a lot of excitement and investment, though. A microreactor developer just saw its reactor reach criticality in a new Department of Energy pilot program.

The world is racing to meet rising electricity demand, and many countries are interested in energy sources, like nuclear power, that don’t come with greenhouse-gas emissions. The key question: Which of these strategies will really pay off in terms of getting electrons on the grid quickly?  

Today, the US and France are known as leaders in the nuclear industry. The US has the world’s largest fleet, with France coming in second. France is heavily dependent on nuclear for its grid—about two-thirds of the country’s power comes from nuclear reactors.

But they have hardly added any new reactors to their fleets in recent years. The US can point only to Vogtle, and France connected its latest reactor to the grid in December 2024—the first in over 20 years. 

It’s incredibly difficult to build the massive projects that dominate the nuclear industry today. Up-front investment can run well into the billions, so investors need to wait decades to break even. Designs are complex and can often change during the regulatory process, tacking on cost and time. 

Many are hoping that the key to turning things around in these countries could be smaller reactors.

The idea is that shrinking the footprint of a reactor cuts down the initial investment needed to prove out the new technology. The reactors could even be put together in a factory rather than being built on-site, allowing for a lower price over time.

These smaller reactors are the target of tons of interest and investment in the US, including a new Department of Energy pilot program. The department set a goal last year of having three test reactors reach criticality by July 4, 2026, the nation’s 250th anniversary. (Criticality is the point at which a reactor achieves a self-sustaining chain reaction that can release energy.)

Last week, California-based Antares hit the milestone with its Mark-0 reactor. 

The company plans to eventually build microreactors, designed to produce between 100 kilowatts and 1 megawatt of electricity (large reactors on the grid today are at least 1,000 times that size). The core design is a sodium-cooled reactor, and it uses TRISO fuel, self-contained graphite-coated spheres of a more concentrated fuel than what most reactors use today. 

But there is still a long way to go before it can actually produce power—the Mark-0 doesn’t have any power conversion or heat removal systems. The company plans to produce electricity in late 2027 and deploy in the field by 2028, CEO Jordan Bramble told the Associated Press.

The private sector is interested—and invested—too. Big Tech companies are throwing money at new reactors they hope can help power data centers. 

But look to the other side of the globe, and others are sticking with the established blueprint: China is absolutely churning out large nuclear reactors. Construction started on six new reactors there in 2025, and two more got underway in the first five months of 2026. The country is on course to overtake both the US and the European Union in installed nuclear capacity by 2030.

The speed here is staggering. As of 2024, the average time to build a new reactor in China came in at between five and seven years. The global average is about nine years, and the two most recent reactors in the US took about 15 years.

One key to this speed is standardization: China has set up a uniform project management system to design, license, and build new reactors. They’re built in batches of six or more to take advantage of economies of scale.

It’s one of the ideas meant to give the edge to smaller reactors, but China is working to realize the same benefits for larger projects. A huge amount of government investment is certainly helping.

Larger reactors generally provide more electricity to the grid for a lower price, a key consideration in view of China’s steeply increasing electricity demand. While smaller reactors require less up-front investment than larger ones because of their size, they’ll actually be more expensive per unit of electricity produced. 

That’s not to say China is exclusively focused on big reactors: the country is also expected to see its first operational small modular reactor, the Linglong-1, start sending power to the grid this year.

But looking ahead, it’ll be interesting to see if smaller reactors can help the West keep building new nuclear power. At the moment, with China’s quick progress, it’s looking as if bigger might just be better. 

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. 

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

The “steroid olympics” were a circus—and a window into our culture

—Amit Katwala

A couple of weeks ago, at a $50 million arena built in a casino parking lot in Las Vegas, I witnessed a libertarian thought experiment come to life. The inaugural Enhanced Games were the first sporting competition where participants were encouraged to take performance-enhancing drugs.

For supporters of the event, the Enhanced Games offered a glimpse of a future in which medical advances push the human race to new heights—and they never have to get old. As I watched the games unfold, two questions bounced around my head: were they right? And what does that mean for the rest of us?

Read the full story to understand the answers.

MIT Technology Review Narrated: a reality check on the AI jobs hysteria

Despite the growing hysteria over AI’s threat to white-collar jobs, there’s still scant evidence that the technology has had a large-scale impact on the labor market.

Analysis of US labor data shows that unemployment in occupations most exposed to AI is actually lower than in less-exposed jobs. There are also no signs that large numbers of workers are shifting from AI-threatened professions into supposedly safer manual-labor jobs.

It’s true that things aren’t great in the job market. But the reason isn’t simply the rise of AI.

—David Rotman

This is our latest story to be turned into an MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we publish each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Anthropic has released a “safe” version of Mythos
It promises it has enough guardrails and user limitations to be safe. (BBC)
+ It has a price tag twice as high as the previous flagship system. (NYT $)
+ Anthropic previously claimed Mythos was too dangerous to release. (CNBC)
+ But critics suspect that was a marketing play. (Guardian)
+ Selective access has become a key strategy for AI labs. (Axios)

2 Seattle has banned new data centers for a year
It’s the largest US city to have passed such a moratorium.(Guardian)
+ Its biggest tech firm, Amazon, has tried to stop the ban. (The Verge)
+ The movement to stop data centers is growing. (NYT $)

3 Democratic senators are pushing for a military AI restriction law
They want a human commander to have the final say. (Gizmodo)
+ But humans in the loop in an AI war is an illusion. (MIT Technology Review)

4 SpaceX plans to launch space data center tests by late 2027
Orbital compute is central to the company’s growth pitch. (Reuters $)
+ It’s also shared new designs for its space data centers. (BI)
+ We’d need these four things to put them in orbit. (MIT Technology Review)

5 China has been accused of escalating AI espionage
A report claims Beijing is hacking tech firms to catch up with the US. (CNBC)
+ There are no winners in a US-China AI arms race. (MIT Technology Review)

6 The Trump family has made about $2.3 billion from crypto
While investors lost about the same amount. (Gizmodo)
+ The Trumps risked next-to-nothing on their crypto ventures. (Reuters $)

7 Apple isn’t launching Siri AI in the European Union
It’s blaming EU interoperability requirements. (The Verge)
+Brussels says Apple didn’t try to find a compliance solution. (Reuters $) 

8 China’s new drone rules have spooked its thriving industry 
Drone firms face new commercial barriers. (Financial Times $)
+ China’s drone sector leads the world. (NYT $)

9 A judge has cancelled a trial after finding both legal teams used AI
The case descended into GenAI tools arguing against each other. (404 Media)
+ Courts have been flooded with AI-generated lawsuits. (MIT Technology Review)

10 The dinosaur-killing asteroid created a thriving new ecosystem
Microscopic life flourished in the extended heat. (New Scientist $)

Quote of the day

“AI technologies today are designed by and for WEIRD societies—Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic.” 

—Aditya Vashistha, an assistant professor at Cornell University, tells Rest of World why AI systems don’t serve global needs.

One More Thing

Why the definition of design might need a change

The word “design” once carried a far wider set of meanings than it does today. They ranged from the literal and material (like tracing) through the tactical (to contrive and achieve a goal) to the organizational and institutional—the “designation” of people and objects.

Over centuries, as designing became increasingly separated from making, that broader understanding faded. But now there is a growing case for reclaiming the word’s original sense: not just the search for a more beautiful shape, but the shaping of a more beautiful and sustainable world. 

Find out why we should retool the word “design.”

—Nicholas de Monchaux

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ This history of humanity’s search for alien life is fascinating.
+ Watch a damaged painting slowly return to life in this art restoration video.
+ Admire young stars across every stage of cosmic formation in this stunning space picture of the month.
+ Daredevil divers have captured the first-ever underwater footage of an adult great white in the Mediterranean Sea.

Testosterone. Methenolone. Nandrolone. Human growth hormone and EPO. Meldonium, modafinil, and mixed amphetamine salts. Clomiphene, anastrozole, levothyroxine, and liothyronine. Patches and capsules, creams and pills. A whole galaxy of steroids, metabolic modulators, and synthetic hormones coursing through the blood of a few dozen swimmers, sprinters, and weightlifters. And millions of dollars up for grabs for athletes who could break world records and usher in the age of superhumanity.

On Sunday, May 24, at a $50 million arena built in a casino parking lot in Las Vegas, I witnessed a libertarian thought experiment come to life. The inaugural Enhanced Games were the first sporting competition where participants were encouraged to take performance-enhancing drugs. The founders say they’re challenging dated sporting norms and helping to build a world where we can all live better, longer lives. Critics say the event is an embarrassment, that it glamorizes the use of dangerous substances and puts lives at risk. 

The open-air venue was compact and decked out in bright blue, with a six-lane, 100-meter track down one side, a four-lane Olympic-length swimming pool down the other, and a weightlifting platform and stage at the front. You could see the golden façade of the Trump Hotel looming in the background. The scene had all the trappings of an NFL game, with the too-loud music and crowd work on the big screen—a “flex cam”  gave the well-muscled an excuse to unveil their biceps. Between events, adverts flashed up for the line of performance products sold by Enhanced, the company behind the event: injectable peptides that supposedly support cellular energy and skin elasticity, daily supplement powders with names like “Stronger” and “Longer.”

Australian swimmer James Magnussen was the first athlete to sign up with Enhanced but hasn’t broken any world records. He finished last in his two events in Las Vegas.

The day started with the weightlifters, under the blazing sun. But by 4 p.m., only one of them had even attempted a world-record lift. Two had pulled out injured. Some athletes were competing without taking drugs because of the money on offer, and as the competition went on, they had the better of their enhanced peers: Hunter Amstrong, a 25-year-old American swimmer and triple Olympic medalist, won the backstroke by more than a second. In the men’s 100-meter sprint, the non-enhanced US athlete Fred Kerley romped to an easy victory. “Man, they gotta do better than that,” he said of his doped opponents in his post-race interview. “They need to train a little harder, get on that shit a little bit more.”

At the bar, bodybuilders swapped before-and-after pictures and talked about their stacks, and VCs and finance bros traded LinkedIn details. Lukas Lakutsin, a 6-foot-10, 354-pound Russian bodybuilder who was milling around the entrance to the VIP suites, initially told me he didn’t use any performance-enhancing drugs. Except testosterone replacement therapy, of course. But he didn’t think that really counted. “I’m almost 34 years old,” he said. “I need to do this to stay strong.”

Jeremy Sigal, an influencer and author, wore a USA tank top that showed off hugely muscled arms adorned with prison tattoos. He told me he was proudly natural, in both his health and his personal life. “I’ve got an exceptional credit score,” he said. He has written 12 books on marketing and leadership. Later, I looked up his most recent book online. It’s called Simp to Pimp: 10 Steps to Fix Why She’s Not Banging You and lists AI as a coauthor.

What I saw in Las Vegas probably wasn’t the future of sport. But it was a perfect encapsulation of our present moment, as Silicon Valley biohackers, alt-right looksmaxxers, Make America Healthy Again boosters, and longevity-obsessed scientists all vie to remake reality in their own image. For them, the Enhanced Games offered a glimpse of a future where medical advances push the human race to new heights, and where they never have to get old. 

I’ve tracked Enhanced’s journey from a crazy idea scribbled on a napkin to a public company valued at $1.2 billion. Behind the scenes, there have been power struggles, life-changing victories, and moments of total farce. As I recently, finally, watched the games unfold, two questions bounced around my head: Were they right? And what does that mean for the rest of us?

---

In December 2022, the Australian entrepreneur Aron D’Souza flew to Miami to spend New Year’s Eve with his friend and mentor Peter Thiel. A decade earlier, D’Souza had helped Thiel orchestrate the lawsuit that bankrupted Gawker—a stunning revenge against the gossipy New York media blog that had outed him as gay. Now he was armed with a disruptive idea that he thought Thiel, the billionaire cofounder of PayPal and Palantir, would love. It was inspired by the buff bodies he’d been seeing at the gym, highlighting a disconnect between a workout culture where the use of steroids was an open secret and a sporting establishment where it was, at least on paper, an inviolable taboo.

D’Souza told me that Thiel had previously introduced him to Christian Angermayer, a German biotech billionaire, who would come onboard at Enhanced. He’s funded clinical trials of psychedelics through his company Atai Life Sciences and is helping bring them into the medical mainstream as a treatment for depression and anxiety. Angermayer says he spotted an opportunity to do the same thing for steroids. What he really wants is to redefine medicine, he told me. Its focus has already changed from treating disease to trying to prevent it; actively enhancing people’s health, he says, is just the next logical step.

By early 2024, Angermayer had brought his own people into key roles. The team included Michael Sagner, an anti-aging expert and private doctor who works with many of Hollywood’s leading men, and Max Martin, who has the jawline and cheekbones of an Instagram looksmaxxing influencer and the boundless enthusiasm of a puppy. (He started his own enhancement program a few years ago, when he was just 27.) Sagner would head up Enhanced’s medical commission, making sure the games were safe for the athletes. It was Martin’s job to make sure they actually happened. 

Tensions sparked as D’Souza’s freewheeling style clashed with the more sensible image that Sagner and others were now keen to present. “It was not just his personality and his abrasive way of talking,” Sagner told me recently. “Even when he was briefed on a scientific fact, he would just completely ignore it and say something outrageous.”

But the more outrageous D’Souza got, the more attention his idea received. In February 2024, James Magnussen, a retired Australian swimmer, became the organization’s first official athlete, and Enhanced promised to pay a million dollars to him, or anyone else, who could break the world record in the 50-meter freestyle.

The notion of a “steroid olympics,” as many have dubbed the Enhanced Games, had been kicking around for decades—for instance, in a Wired article from the early 2000s and an SNL sketch from the 1980s. Two things helped finally make the Enhanced Games a reality. First, in November 2024, Donald Trump was again elected president of the United States. The Biden administration had been actively hostile to the games, but the founders saw a more receptive political environment in Trump world. Not long after the election, Enhanced announced a new tranche of funding led by 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm whose partners include Donald Trump Jr.

And second, in February 2025, an enhanced swimmer finished the 50-meter freestyle faster than anyone in human history. It wasn’t Magnussen, though. He had been injecting himself with testosterone to grow muscle, plus a cocktail of peptides that aimed to speed up recovery—but his journey hadn’t quite worked the way he’d planned.

A combination of reputational issues (no pools wanted to host his training) and physical complications (the regimen did help him get stronger, but he packed on so much muscle that it slowed him down in the water) meant he watched from the sidelines as the Bulgarian-Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev—who had finished fifth at the Paris Olympics in 2024—came in two-hundredths of a second under the record and won a million-dollar payout from Enhanced. The idea has always been that breaking records would effectively prove the legitimacy of this enhancement project: Look what we can do now. 

Gkolomeev, though, had a different motivation for participating: “One successful year in the Enhanced Games and I could make as much as I would in almost 10 careers,” he told me not long after setting the new record (notably, wearing a kind of “supersuit” that’s been banned by World Aquatics since 2010). Enhanced was paying its athletes a regular salary, on top of any potential bonus. And he had a young family to support and feared that the four-year stretch to the next Olympics would be long and precarious. 

In May 2025, with a world record in the bag and a friendly administration in the White House, Enhanced was ready to announce its first games: They’d take place in May 2026 at Resorts World in Las Vegas. 

At the same time, D’Souza made another big reveal: Enhanced Performance Products, a line of supplements available for a monthly subscription. The Enhanced Games now seemed less like a sporting event and more like a loss leader for selling testosterone injections, GLP-1s, or a range of peptides that are claimed, with little scientific evidence, to improve sleep or skin elasticity. Perhaps it was all a brilliantly executed marketing stunt.

“The games themselves now seem almost secondary to what appears to be an online marketplace for hormones, peptides, and other performance-enhancing compounds,” says Astrid Kristine Bjørnebekk, a steroids expert at Oslo University Hospital. “From my perspective, this significantly changes the nature of the project. It is one thing to organize a closed sporting event built around controversial principles, but openly marketing and commercializing substances such as testosterone, hGH, GLP-1 drugs, peptides, and other pharmacological compounds is something else entirely.”

---

As the games approached, more athletes joined. Some were genuinely elite. The US sprinter Kerley—who is serving a two-year ban for missing three drug tests—had won silver in the 100 meters in the Tokyo Olympics and a bronze in Paris. Ben Proud, a British swimmer, had won silver at the Paris Olympics and dozens of medals at world and European championships and the Commonwealth Games. He had been mulling over joining the Enhanced Games ever since the idea first emerged, but the tipping point seemed to come when Gkolomeev’s record was announced. 

Some participants, like Magnussen and another swimmer, Megan Romano, had been tempted out of retirement. Romano hadn’t swum competitively for almost a decade. Others were at the start of their careers but ready to cash in their chips and bid goodbye to Olympic dreams for a potential six-figure payday. The $1 million payouts were reserved for records in the two flagship events—the 50-meter freestyle and the 100-meter sprint—but winning any other event would mean a prize of $250,000, with an additional $250,000 bonus for setting a world record.

Athletes would get paid even if they just showed up and finished last—as much as $50,000. This is all on top of the salaries that stretched into six figures in some cases, making the payout from the games more than many athletes make in a year.

Sport’s governing bodies reacted to each new athlete announcement with fury. World Aquatics threatened to ban for life any athlete who participated in the games, even if they didn’t take any drugs. Enhanced responded with an $800 million antitrust lawsuit against the global swimming organization, the World Anti-Doping Agency, and USA Swimming, alleging misuse of monopoly power.

In November 2025, a court in New York dismissed the case. Three days later, D’Souza, the mind behind the entire project, was out. A notice on Enhanced’s website said he had “transitioned out of the company’s day-to-day operations.” Martin would take over as CEO. “The investors basically said we need someone a bit more serious,” Sagner told me. In conversations, execs at Enhanced played down any suggestion of a feud—D’Souza was simply the ideas man, with little interest in the day-to-day dreariness of actually running a company. (Enhanced spokesperson Chris Jones wrote in a statement that “there is no tension between Aron and Enhanced that I’m aware of.” D’Souza did not respond to a request for comment.)

I got the sense that Enhanced, in its new iteration as a pharmaceutical subscription company, was almost embarrassed by the games. When I visited enhanced.com a couple of months before the event, they had been relegated to a sub-heading on the home page. D’Souza’s showmanship had helped get attention for what was becoming a run-of-the-mill telehealth business like Hims & Hers—albeit one well timed to take advantage of a shifting regulatory landscape around peptides, which Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the US secretary of health and human services, has been pushing the FDA to approve despite a lack of evidence that they’re actually effective. 

Sagner is still loosely involved with Enhanced, but he says the medical commission was not consulted before it launched its line of performance products. (Jones did not respond to a question regarding this claim.) Sagner is scathing about what he sees as the “hype” around peptides. “I can tell you already, peptides do nothing,” he says—with the exception of human growth hormone and GLP-1. “The peptides that people use, black-market peptides that they buy online—they do nothing. We have tested them; 80% of them contain nothing. It’s saline solution, salt water, and some of them are contaminated.”

---

At the end of January 2026, a group of around 40 swimmers, weightlifters, and sprinters arrived in Abu Dhabi to start their individualized enhancement “protocol,” as Enhanced calls it. Officially, they would be taking part in a clinical trial, pending approval by the Abu Dhabi government and overseen by Guido Pieles, a Qatar-based cardiologist who has taken over the reins of Enhanced’s medical commission from Sagner.

They would be allowed to choose only from a menu  of specific FDA-approved drugs. Pieles broke them down into five categories: testosterone variants and growth hormones, which can both boost muscle mass; metabolic modulators that can tweak how the body burns fat; stimulants like Adderall to improve focus; and EPO, which can increase the amount of oxygen the blood is able to carry. While Enhanced’s team might recommend particular things, the athletes would have the final say on what they wanted to take, if anything. (As Oslo University’s Bjørnebekk points out, FDA approval “does not mean the substances are inherently safe, particularly not when used for enhancement purposes.”) 

There would be regular blood tests, heart scans, and brain scans and access to the best training facilities money could buy. Pieles and others say the clinical trial will help inform the line of supplements Enhanced is offering consumers, but there’s actually very little overlap between the drugs the athletes were taking and the substances the company is currently selling.  

Not long after they arrived in the Middle East, the athletes were awakened by the sound of explosions at a military base near their hotel. The US and Israel had struck Iran, and the Iranian regime was responding by peppering the region with missiles. “It wasn’t a pleasant situation,” says Andrii Govorov, the world record holder in the 50-meter butterfly, who a year earlier had become one of the first swimmers to join Enhanced. Govorov had some experience in these matters—back in Ukraine, he’d had a business selling cars that helped fund his swimming career, but he’d lost it after the Russian invasion.

Swimming, sprinting, and weightlifting were the focus of the first Enhanced Games but in many ways the sports were the sideshow.

The conflict exacerbated delays in getting approval for the clinical trial and sourcing the drugs, and as a result, what was supposed to be a 12-week enhancement protocol got cut down to eight weeks. The athletes didn’t actually start taking the drugs until toward the end of March. For those who had always been clean, that represented the irreversible crossing of a line. “The first injection was very emotional, very tricky to navigate,” says Proud. “For me, that was the day I went from the Ben Proud that I always knew to a new person.”

Proud was joined in the enhancement program by his girlfriend, Emily Barclay, who had swum at college level without ever appearing at a major international event; she was working as a swimming teacher at a school in England. After that first injection, they left Abu Dhabi and spent a few days in Dubai as they reckoned with what they had done. “I just couldn’t be around the team,” Proud says. “I wanted to be by myself and feel those feelings, because it is a big deal to make that step, and I felt it.”

Those feelings were soon forgotten, though, as the drugs kicked in. Proud says he had incredible energy, and a drive to train that he hadn’t experienced before. Shania Collins, an American sprinter, says she had “increased strength, increased recovery, and increased mental clarity at practice.” Sagner and several athletes admitted there were some side effects: acne and some swelling around the joints; unwanted hair growth for the women, unwanted hair loss for the men.

One thing the athletes wouldn’t talk about, though, is what drugs they were actually taking. They all had the same reason: not wanting to encourage copycats who might take enhancements without a doctor on hand to tailor programs to their needs. 

The one exception was Thor Björnsson (testosterone, deca-durabolin, anastrozole, halotestin), a hulking Icelandic deadlifter and former World’s Strongest Man who played The Mountain on Game of Thrones. Björnsson first heard about the games on Joe Rogan’s podcast and was immediately interested. The rules for strongman competitions are somewhat less stringent than those for Olympic sports, though, and he actually had to reduce the number of substances he was taking to meet Enhanced’s FDA requirements.

---

That same week, it was finally go time. The athletes and coaches left Abu Dhabi and flew to Las Vegas, where they were put up in five-star luxury at the Conrad hotel inside Resorts World while they made their final preparations. 

When I got there a few weeks later, toward the end of May, I found it jarring to see these hulking presences walking around the casino in their Enhanced sportswear, weaving their way through packs of half-drunk tourists, with slot machines flashing in the background and cigarette smoke hanging in the air. I had expected the games to be a bigger deal within the city itself, but they were just one of a thousand things happening in Vegas that weekend—drowned out by a series of BTS shows at the football stadium, by the Golden Knights in the NHL playoffs, by No Doubt’s residency at the Sphere.

If this was a sporting earthquake, it was one whose tremors were mainly being felt online, where bodybuilding influencers livestreamed to their followers on Kick and Twitch, and where thousands watched on YouTube and Rumble. (D’Souza once told me he’d had “every major sports broadcaster” vying for the rights; in the end, Enhanced struck an exclusive streaming deal with Roku in the US.) 

On the morning of the games, Enhanced held a medical symposium that was supposed to provide a taste of the company’s long-term objectives. The first speaker was Bryan Johnson, the longevity-obsessed entrepreneur famous for plowing his personal fortune into wild attempts to reverse his aging: receiving transfusions of his teenage son’s plasma, measuring his nighttime erections, taking more than 100 supplement pills a day. He spends $2 million per year on all this, but he looked pale and vampiric as he delivered the slightly off-brand message that, really, the most important thing was getting a good night’s sleep: “You don’t need to chase IV infusions; you don’t need to chase crystals. You don’t really need to do much of anything.”

At 2 p.m., I took two escalators from the conference room down to the arena, where spectators were filtering in. Though it had cost $50 million, it had been constructed in just three and a half weeks, and it showed; on the media tour the previous day, there were still loose screws on the floor of the bleachers. 

There were a few thousand seats in an open grandstand down one side, and two rows of VIP suites on the other. No tickets were sold, so it was a strange mix of invited guests, investors, and influencers, some of whom had reportedly been flown in from Los Angeles on a chartered jet. The rapper Tyga was the biggest name to grace the “blue carpet,” although I did also spot Fabio James, a Michael Jackson look-alike who has had surgery to make the resemblance even stronger. Rumors swirled that Peter Thiel might show up; they proved unfounded.

A few hours before the doors opened, journalists got a stern message from the organizers trying to bar us from interviewing guests. Still, I talked to a Cambridge professor who wanted to use Enhanced as a case study in innovation for his MBA students, a retired Brazilian swimmer with the Olympic rings tattooed on his forearm, and a biotech investor wearing an Enron hat. Proud’s family and friends were sheltered from the blazing sun in the shadow of the big screen. 

D’Souza was nowhere to be seen. Nor was he really mentioned at all—not during the introductory press conference, where Martin was introduced as the “founder of the Enhanced Games,” nor during the event itself, where the athletes showered praise on Angermayer and Martin. But the tens of millions D’Souza had banked from the stock listing likely softened any blow. Plus, he’s already moved on to his next provocative venture: an AI-powered arbitration platform designed to scrutinize the work of journalists on behalf of the rich and powerful.

---

As the sun set behind the hills, casting the arena in soft gold light, there were still no world records. That and the wins for clean athletes seemed to put the whole Enhanced project in jeopardy—the knives were already being sharpened online. I asked the organizers whether this threatened the legitimacy of the project. 

“Our response is that enhancements help athletes improve and, in some cases, break records. And yes, some non-enhanced athletes also won—because talent and ability also matter,” Enhanced’s Jones emailed last week. “Breaking world records is incredibly hard as the margin is infinitesimal, as we witnessed. Ignoring that 13 athletes some of whom 10 years later broke personal bests is disingenuous and selective reporting.” 

Megan Romano was one of them, swimming faster in the 50-meter freestyle at 35 than she had at 22. And Emily Barclay knocked two seconds off her fastest time in the 100-meter freestyle, coming in second in that event and winning the 50-meter freestyle; she went home with a check for $375,000. “No one’s ever heard of this girl,” said Enhanced swim coach Brett Hawke afterwards. “She’s retired; she’s a nobody. She comes out tonight and swims a time that would have got a bronze medal in Paris.” For all the talk of “superhumanity” and pushing the boundaries of performance, making a 35-year-old feel 22 again is probably the perfect marketing message for the products Enhanced wants to sell. 

Enhanced’s executives say people should take enhancements only with medical supervision, but price could be a barrier to heeding that advice. The battery of health tests the company was giving its athletes in the run-up to the games cost $25,000 per athlete per month. The drugs themselves start at $75 a month and go up toward $200. While Jones says the products “are in line with industry price points,” there were almost certainly people watching who saw the drug-altered physiques of athletes like Gkolomeev or Magnussen and decided to find cheaper, less safe alternatives on unlicensed websites.

“Many of these substances require medical supervision and prescriptions, and several are associated with potentially serious long-term health consequences,” says Bjørnebekk. “Presenting them in this lifestyle-oriented and commercial format risks normalizing use while downplaying the medical risks and uncertainties.”

Before the night was over,  Gkolomeev again had the chance to right the Enhanced ship. The final event of the night was the men’s 50-meter freestyle swim. His 2025 time had been surpassed by the Australian swimmer Cam McEvoy (without a supersuit) at the China Swimming Open a couple of months before, so he needed to lose another two-hundredths of a second to beat the new record of 20.88 seconds. 

Gkolomeev was wearing the same supersuit he’d used the previous year, and he’d shaved off his mustache for a little extra streamlining. But he messed up his start—doing four kicks instead of five—and was trailing Proud at the halfway mark. His long arms levered him forward, though, and he reached the wall in 20.81. The spectators were on their feet as “WORLD RECORD” flashed red on the big screen. Martin vaulted over the glass partition from the VIP suites, beaming, to embrace Gkolomeev. They had their record.

Or did they? Online, people shared screenshots from the video feed, purporting to show that the clock had stopped before Gkolomeev’s hand touched the pressure sensor at the end of the pool. An Enhanced spokesperson gave a statement to the Guardian dismissing this as “completely unfounded internet drivel.” But hey—live by the sword, die by the sword. It’s quite possible Gkolomeev didn’t care. He had another million in the bank. 

It remains to be seen if it’ll work out so well for the other athletes. Enhanced organizers recently announced a prize of $10 million for anyone who can break Usain Bolt’s 100-meter world record in 2027. They are adamant that the games will happen again next year. If they don’t, dozens of sporting careers will be over, and the athletes will join the long list of victims of VC-backed disruption.

My personal prediction is that Enhanced will pivot away from the risk and uncertainty of a flagship event—the company’s valuation plunged by almost $800 million when markets opened after what was perceived as an underwhelming set of results in Vegas. I expect you’ll see individual stunts and challenges, tightly controlled and filmed for virality and probably featuring your favorite YouTubers—think Björnsson bench-pressing Jake Paul.

D’Souza’s initial idea has served its purpose by capturing the world’s attention. But that won’t necessarily translate into success either. Though the company has had plenty of hype over the last 12 months, SEC filings published as part of its stock exchange listing reveal that it generated only $2,755 in revenue from its enhancements business in the first three months of 2026. Would what happened in Vegas be enough to juice sales?

As the athletes gathered on the stage to receive their prizes, Martin took the microphone and addressed the crowd. “Enhanced is culture,” he said. “We are at the pulse of where the world is going.” On this, at least, he’s probably right. Testosterone replacement therapy is rapidly moving into the mainstream, and while the science may still not be there on peptides, they have certainly exploded in popularity in the two years since Enhanced launched. And there are undoubtedly more substances yet to be discovered that will promise to improve people’s lives, or at least hold their appearance in stasis. The enhanced age is upon us, whether we want it or not. 

As the fireworks went off and the Killers closed out the event with “When You Were Young” (“Congratulations to … whoever deserves it,” said frontman Brandon Flowers), I wondered what that might mean for us mere mortals. Invoking Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in a story about drugs and Las Vegas may be a cliché, but it struck me that fear played a big part in all of this. Fear of missing out. Fear of getting old. Fear of never making a dime on your life’s pursuit. Fear of waking up one morning and seeing your flabby, sunken face in the mirror while everyone around you shines and grins and thrives with white-toothed, alien smiles.

But the big problem with Enhanced’s vision of superhumanity is the question of who gets to join in. “People will be able to enhance themselves if they have enough money,” Sagner had told me the night before the games. The rest of us, I fear, will just have to function as normal human beings.

Amit Katwala is a journalist and author covering science, culture, and where they collide. His latest book is Tremors in the Blood: Murder, Obsession and the Birth of the Lie Detector. He is based in London.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

David Sinclair plans to test whole-body rejuvenation drugs in the XPrize competition

The outspoken longevity scientist David Sinclair has predicted that, one day, you’ll go to the doctor and get a prescription that will make you 10 years younger. MIT Technology Review has learned of his latest step toward this: human tests of a “reprogramming” drug.

Sinclair, a biologist at Harvard Medical School, plans to launch the tests in a $101 million competition organized by the XPrize Foundation. The winners will “restore” a person to an earlier apparent age, as measured by improvements in immune, cognitive, and muscle function.

The grand prize goes to any team able to show a 10-year (or greater) relative improvement after one year of treatment. 

Sinclair says he plans to give an oral drug mixture to volunteers, in a bid to seek “evidence for age restoration in humans.” Find out how he hopes to reverse ageing through chemical reprogramming.

—Antonio Regalado

Five things you need to know about AI

—Will Douglas Heaven

At SXSW London last week, I gave a talk called “Five things you need to know about AI,” in which I shared what I think are the biggest themes in AI right now.

I pulled a few things from our first AI10 list, an annual guide to the top trends in this buzzy world, but I also veered off on several tangents. In my half-hour slot, I tried to cover the key talking points that I think help to make sense of what’s going on in tech—and thus the economy—today.  

Five key thoughts emerged: AI is everywhere all at once, it’s getting scary, a backlash is growing, it’s becoming a big deal for science—and I didn’t even need to show up at the talk. Read the full story for all the details.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 OpenAI has confidentially filed for a US IPO
The listing could come as early as September. (Reuters $)
+ OpenAI is targeting a valuation of up to $1 trillion. (Financial Times $)
+ The IPO will test investor appetite for AI companies. (WSJ $)
+ The move follows IPO filings from Anthropic and SpaceX. (CNN)

2 The US claims BYD, Baidu, Alibaba, and others are aiding China’s military
The Pentagon added them to a list of military-linked companies. (WSJ $)
+ The designations limit their operations in the US. (BBC)
+ The new additions also include humanoid firm Unitree. (TechCrunch)
+ The Pentagon is adapting to China’s tech rise. (MIT Technology Review)

3 Apple’s long-awaited AI overhaul of Siri is finally here
“Siri AI” promises to be a more conversational assistant. (NYT $)
+ It includes a standalone app and screen-reading features. (Reuters $)
+ And arrives after two years of repeated delays. (Axios)

4 The White House and Congress are working to limit state AI laws
A new deal would curb state rules for federal legislation. (Axios)
+ AI regulation has divided US politicians. (MIT Technology Review)

5  Meta is launching a “workforce academy” for building data centers
The five-week program is free of charge and guarantees a job. (WSJ $)
+ It arrives shortly after Meta laid off 8,000 employees. (NPR)

6 Taiwan is mulling curbs on AI chip exports to China
The new controls would further align with US restrictions. (Bloomberg $)
+ Future AI chips could be built on glass. (MIT Technology Review)

7 Meta has quietly removed face-recognition code from its smart glasses app
The code identified by investigators has disappeared. (Wired $)

8 Humanoid robots are edging towards the battlefield
American and Chinese militaries are pursuing the tech. (BBC)

9 The world’s first wind-powered underwater data center has launched
It uses less power and water than land-based equivalents. (Guardian)

10 You could get some benefits of sleep without having to nod off
If new brain stimulation works as well on humans as on mice, that is. (New Scientist $)

Quote of the day

“You’re on the train, but you know that there’s no destination.”

—Clara Shih, a former top AI executive at Salesforce and Meta, tells the New York Times that AI training can’t keep up with the field’s advances.

One More Thing

Inside the race to make human sex cells in the lab

An embryo forms when sperm meets egg. But what if we could start with other cells—if a blood sample or skin biopsy could be transformed into “artificial” sperm and eggs? What if those were all you needed to make a baby?

That’s the promise of a radical approach to reproduction. Scientists have already created artificial eggs and sperm from mouse cells and used them to create mouse pups. Artificial human sex cells are next.

The advances could herald the end of infertility, but they raise major scientific and ethical challenges. 

Read the full story on the new recipes for sperm and eggs.

—Jessica Hamzelou

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ These chefs turn Pop-Tarts into the desserts that inspired them.
+ A choir has beautifully transformed System of a Down’s “Chop Suey!”
+ Scientists finally traced crabs’ sideways walk in this fascinating study of evolution.
+ This nostalgic essay on the family computer is a touching throwback to early internet life.

Top image credit: Stephanie Arnett/MIT Technology Review | Getty Images

Please send Pop-Tarts to hi@technologyreview.com. 

You can follow me on LinkedIn. Thanks for reading!

—Thomas

As adoption of AI agents looks set to surge by as much as 300% in the next two years, leadership teams are carefully considering the implications of a hybrid human-AI workforce. 

Unlike existing enterprise-level automation that relies on manual input, AI agents are capable of autonomously coordinating complex tasks, interacting with multiple tools and environments across an organization. In early applications that center on customer service, HR, and sales, adoption of agentic AI has led to productivity gains of 30-50%. 

Their autonomy positions agents more as collaborators than tools, working side-by-side with human employees in blended teams that look poised to upend traditional workplace dynamics. 

More than three-quarters of HR leaders believe that the deployment of AI agents will transform existing workplace norms, driving a complete reappraisal of how roles and responsibilities are distributed, how skills are prioritized, and how workplace culture is shaped.

Though many admit they’re in the early or preparatory phase of this shift, 86% of chief HR officers predict that navigating digital labor shaped by agentic AI will be a central component of their role in the years ahead.

Fluency in the change management aspect of agentic AI adoption will be a crucial differentiator when it comes to unlocking the full potential of the technology going forward, believes Ateet Jayaswal, chief culture and employee experience officer at Wipro, a leading technology services and consulting company. This moment is one that he says, “calls for a mindset shift in how HR leaders would enable their organizations.”

Redeploying roles to enable higher-value work

As AI agents assume ownership of more complex and integral tasks, the distribution of roles and responsibilities within an organization will undergo significant change. It’s estimated that three-quarters of current roles will require redesign, reskilling, or redeployment by 2030 as a result of agentic AI. 

For leadership, this shift should be about reskilling employees toward higher-value work in order to optimize the potential of an agent-human hybrid workforce, says Jayaswal. 

For example, Wipro is a complex organization of 240,000 employees across 65 countries. It previously had multiple policies, documents, and knowledge fragmented across different systems, which delayed response to employee queries. 

But the company has recently integrated a custom agentic AI assistant—an agent co-created in partnership with enterprise agentic AI platform Ema Unlimited—that can swiftly navigate this complex system, assuming responsibility for 50 HR tasks that had previously fallen to human employees. With the help of an AI agent, average response time to queries has lowered from 48 hours to five seconds. 

Human employees have more time to focus on work “that requires a creative and imaginative mind and cross-functional collaboration, leveraging diverse ideas and thoughts to problem-solve,” says Jayaswal. The AI agent, meanwhile, handles rote administrative tasks like sorting timesheets or helping employees navigate policies and take actions in the flow of work. 

When reallocating employee responsibilities, though, it is imperative that humans remain in the loop, Jayaswal caveats. When agentic AI is incorporated into enterprise technology, it must work with sensitive and personal data and therefore needs even more stringent guardrails and constraints than consumer applications. “When you expose an AI agent to organizational data, when you integrate it into multiple enterprise systems, then pathways around the AI agent become extremely important,” he says. “It’s an evolving space that leadership needs to have front-of-mind.” Governance should include robust data privacy rules and the establishment of governance layers, such as an AI council, he suggests.  

At a fundamental level, the adoption of AI agents will force a re-evaluation of human roles, believes Jayaswal. Rather than employees primarily performing repetitive tasks or troubleshooting, a significant proportion of their time will shift to designing, teaching, and optimizing an AI agent that can do this work for them with far greater speed and predictability and without the agent getting bored. 

“The nature of your job changes from being the hero who comes in to solve the problem to designing the hero who can solve the problem,” he summarizes. “The individuals who I have seen thrive in this environment are the ones who make this shift.”

An evolving employee skillset

Just as roles and responsibilities will be reconfigured to reflect the input of AI agents, the core skills of human employees will be reprioritized. More than four in five HR leaders say they’re planning to reskill workers to become more competitive in a market shaped by AI agents. 

Technical skills will be increasingly important. Leading employers such as Salesforce, Danone, and Walmart are already rolling out dedicated AI and digital skills programs that aim to equip everyone from frontline workers to C-suite executives with a baseline level of AI literacy in response to the pervasiveness of the technology. 

But desirable soft skills will also evolve, Jayaswal points out. Employees who assign tasks to an AI agent need to plainly articulate what modular steps may be needed to accomplish a task, what the desired outcome should be, and what parameters or guardrails need to be in place to ensure the agent doesn’t access or share confidential data. 

As HR executives adapt to a blended workforce, three skills are emerging as top priorities during recruitment, according to a recent survey: relationship building, like forging constructive partnerships and account management; collaboration; and adaptability. 

Maintaining a healthy workplace culture

In freeing up human employees to focus on higher-value tasks, the hope is that AI agents can elevate the employee experience, deepening fulfilment and satisfaction in the workplace. 

“At Wipro, our vision is to improve the life of Wiproites,” says Jayaswal. “We are taking away non-value added work by embracing modern ways of collaborating, engaging, and transacting, leaving associates with higher order work content.” 

But leadership teams embracing agentic AI will also need to plan for the new pressures and stressors that the technology can place on a workforce. 

There is already confusion and knowledge gaps, with 73% of HR leaders reporting their employees don’t yet understand how digital labor will impact their work. Many organizations have opted to define AI agents as teammates or colleagues on org charts, but new research says this could erode trust and a sense of professional identity. It also raises new questions around accountability and ownership. 

The role of management in addressing these concerns is critical, says Jayaswal. To maintain healthy dynamics, managers need to become skilled at orchestrating blended systems, splitting their focus between supervising AI agents and motivating human employees as they also build and supervise AI agents.

Upgrading employee well-being programs will be a core part of maintaining a robust workplace culture. “As there are more interactions with AI agents, you are losing some of the human touch that was provided by service delivery partners or leaders, or often even by colleagues and peers,” Jayaswal says. Employee services that encourage social connection and empathetic communication may help teams navigate this. 

A breakneck transformation

Agentic AI looks set to scale at breakneck speed across many enterprises, and it will significantly transform how these organizations operate. 

Carefully considering and deciding how to adapt to this newly blended workforce is now a top priority for leadership teams. Reviewing and refining organizational strategies is essential for optimizing both technological gains and the employee experience.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

The outspoken longevity scientist David Sinclair has been predicting that one day, you’ll go to the doctor and get a prescription that will make you 10 years younger.

Now MIT Technology Review has learned that he has plans to launch human tests of an oral “reprogramming” drug as part of a $101 million competition organized by the XPrize Foundation. 

The foundation is offering cash awards to teams able to “restore” a person to an earlier apparent age, as measured by improvements in immune, cognitive, and muscle function. 

The grand prize goes to any team able to show a 10-year (or greater) relative improvement after one year of treatment. 

Reached by phone, Sinclair, a biologist at Harvard Medical School, confirmed that he plans to give an oral drug mixture to volunteers in a bid to seek “evidence for age restoration in humans.”

The trial, if it goes forward, will be a significant new development in the race to harness so-called epigenetic reprogramming. That technology is based on the discovery, 20 years ago, of powerful genes able to turn an adult cell into a stem cell similar to those found in embryos.

The age-reversal effect is believed to occur via a resetting of molecular controls on DNA known as epigenetic marks, which help determine a cell’s overall metabolism and identity.

Companies are now racing to use that phenomenon for a new form of rejuvenation medicine. Only this January, one of Sinclair’s companies, Life Biosciences, made news by winning approval to launch an initial human trial using a set of powerful reprogramming genes. The company announced today it had treated its first patient. 

But that test involves a complex gene therapy and is limited to patients’ eyes, where it could treat conditions like glaucoma. 

Sinclair’s new plan is bolder: a reprogramming drug you’d swallow in order to promote such effects across the body. 

“What we’re aiming to do is to epigenetically restore the animal and eventually the person,” he says. “It is true that we’ve been doing extensive animal studies with the oral agent and are looking to compete in the XPrize.”

This alternative method, chemical reprogramming, uses drugs to mimic the effects of the embryonic genes. That is significant because drug compounds can travel through the bloodstream, reaching most or all cells in a person’s body. 

Some experts expressed caution, saying the chemical process, at least as used in labs, is extremely harsh and not even particularly effective. “Who doesn’t dream of whole-body rejuvenation? I think it’s a great goal,” says Sergiy Velychko, founder of Soxogen, a stealth reprogramming company in Boston. “But these chemicals are used in very, very high concentrations for cell reprogramming.”

Sinclair declined to describe the exact makeup of the drug candidate, code-named SL-100, calling its contents “highly, highly confidential.”

However, he has previously published lab studies of what he called “epigenetic age-reversal cocktails,” which mixed powerful chemicals with known supplements and commercially available medicines. 

It’s those latter components that would be easiest to test on people, since doctors are free to prescribe them, even for unusual objectives like age reversal. James Clement, head of Betterhumans, an organization that specializes in life-extension studies using existing drugs, said in a message that he is “running clinical trials” of an oral reprogramming cocktail for Sinclair’s XPrize team.

Sinclair’s team is competing in the XPrize Healthspan Competition, launched in 2023. It follows several previous competitions that focused on commercial spaceflight, lunar landings, and other goals. The XPrize Foundation is led by executive chairman Peter Diamandis, also an active promoter of longevity research.

“If two teams are equivalent, they would split the award,” says Jamie Justice, a doctor and executive director for the contest, which was bankrolled by Saudi Arabia’s Hevolution Foundation, “But it will be incredibly hard to even get to one winner.”

Justice says a judging panel is now in the process of picking 10 finalists from 65 teams that have been exploring health foods, lifestyle interventions, digital trackers, and drug compounds. 

Sinclair’s team, Justice says, was a late entrant to the contest, but like all teams, it would be required to move into wider human tests starting this year. “You have to be ready and in trials,” she says.

The race to harness the reprogramming phenomenon and apply it to living people is heating up, even outside the XPrize competition. On June 2, a startup called NewLimit, founded by the crypto billionaire Brian Armstrong, said it had raised a further $435 million, from investors including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, to support what it calls “age reprogramming.” 

The company says it is working toward delivering genetic reprogramming instructions to the liver, to treat diseases of that organ.

But Sinclair has been saying that whole-body rejuvenation is a possibility too. And for that, chemicals, rather than gene therapy, could be the most practical strategy. 

Sinclair says his lab has been searching for such compounds and is starting to use AI “to improve the oral agents that we’re testing.”

Chemical reprogramming cocktails, as used in labs, typically involve a mix of vitamins, approved drugs, and experimental molecules. For instance, one recipe Sinclair filed a patent on includes the supplement forskolin,  the antidepressant tranylcypromine, and an experimental chemical, laduviglusib, which has been tested against Alzheimer’s, among other ingredients.

“In those days it was a six-factor cocktail,” Sinclair says of his earlier research. “But we’ve come a long way. I can’t disclose what’s in it, but it’s an improvement and an advance on that, and we’ve done a number of animal studies. They are not published, but we’ve been doing them for a long time, and we want to make sure that we’ve done a full investigation of safety and efficacy before we release any of the data.”

While Sinclair’s results aren’t published, other teams say attempts to reverse the age of entire animals using chemical drugs haven’t worked yet. Last year, the lab of Vadim Gladyshev, another Harvard biologist and a member of a different XPrize team, reported on its attempt to rejuvenate mice by installing pumps in their bodies that released controlled doses of seven compounds.

Gladyshev says the procedure proved to be toxic. “The idea was to see if we could rejuvenate whole animals. Unfortunately, we have not found [the right] conditions,” he says. “At low concentrations there was no effect, and high concentrations were toxic.”

Gladyshev says he doesn’t know what is in Sinclair’s cocktail, but says that “trying to improve the combinations makes sense.”

Sinclair, who is the author of several books on aging and has a large social media following, has frequently been criticized by other scientists for making unproven rejuvenation claims. 

In 2024, he resigned as president of the Academy for Health and Lifespan Research after claiming that a supplement developed by a company his brother runs had “reversed” the age of dogs, a claim for which there was so little evidence that one scientist called it a “lie.”

Part of the problem is that scientists still disagree on how to measure aging. And they don’t have a reliable way to measure age reversal, either, should it ever be achieved.

Justice, the XPRIZE director, says a primary purpose of the competition is to solve that problem by encouraging the development of standardized measures of aging. That is so that anti-aging drugs can be assessed reliably, and, one-day, approved by regulators if they work.

 “We as a scientific field have been forced to ask, ‘If a medicine improves how we age, how would we know?” Justice said during a public meeting with FDA officials in May. “If something worked, what would convince us as scientists, what’s meaningful to the general public?”

Finalists in the Healthspan competition will be announced in August.

At SXSW London last week I gave a talk called “Five things you need to know about AI,” in which I shared what I think are the biggest themes in AI right now.

I pulled a few things from our first AI10 list, an annual guide to the most important trends in this buzzy world, but I also veered off on a number of tangents. In my half-hour slot, I tried to cover the key talking points that I think help to make sense of what’s going on in tech—and thus the economy—today.  

(I gave a talk with the same title at SXSW London last year with five different things you needed to know. A lot has happened since then!)

So: This is how I’m thinking about AI midway through 2026. Let me know if you would pick different points!

1. Strictly speaking, I didn’t need to show up to give this talk.

Tongue in cheek? Maybe. But generative AI tools have already become mundane, used by millions to automate everyday office tasks (including producing and delivering talks). It’s no surprise that one of the biggest questions out there right now is what this all means for jobs. People are confused and scared.

The frustrating answer is that despite the hype coming from the top about the potential for AI to join the workforce soon—and viral social media posts yelling that something big is happening—there is almost no data to say either way what kind of effect this technology will have on employment and the economy overall. That’s not to say it won’t have an impact, even a huge one, but it’s just too soon to tell.

In theory, teams of agents working together toward common goals could become assembly lines for white-collar work, doing to offices this century what Henry Ford’s innovations did to factories in the 20th century.

In theory. Because in order to know what will happen to jobs, we need to know what will happen inside the companies that create those jobs. But most companies are still figuring that out.

 2. AI is getting scary (for real this time).

There have been scary stories about AI for years—claims that it will kill us all or bring about the end of civilization. There’s still a loud crowd of doomers, but those scenarios remain dystopian science fiction.

What’s happened instead is that many of the worst near-term, real-world fears have come true.

Take deepfakes, AI-generated images or videos of people doing things they didn’t actually do. Deepfakes have been used to incite violence, swing votes, and sow distrust. Trump’s White House is among those creating and publishing fake images.

Many deepfakes are also used to abuse women and girls. One study found that 98% of deepfakes are pornographic and 99% involve women.

Another concern is the rise of dangerous and delusional relationships with chatbots. Many people turn to chatbots to seek private advice and to feel heard. But there are now multiple lawsuits against AI companies alleging that the technology encouraged or aided suicides and other forms of self-harm.

AI is also being used in warfare in new and worrying ways. LLMs are now giving advice, not just being used for analysis. One US defense official told my colleague James O’Donnell that you could now give a military chatbot a list of targets and ask which one to hit first. Anyone who uses AI knows that its output needs to be reviewed carefully. In fact-paced, high-stress active conflict, the risk that corners get cut is high.

3. A lot of people really hate AI.

I checked out an anti-AI protest in London earlier this year and found a very broad mix of complaints. Banners proclaiming the end times bounced along to chants of “Stop the slop! Stop the slop!” Protests are getting more organized and drawing larger crowds.

There’s pushback from fans of films and video games, who object to the use of generative AI in their favorite titles. In one notable case, the acclaimed 2025 game Clair Obscur was stripped of an award when the developers admitted to using AI in just one small, specific part of its production.

And there’s the data center backlash. The US has more than 5,400 data centers and counting. With the energy demands of AI growing, people are unhappy about the environmental impact and their rising electricity bills. Activists are managing to stall development in a number of places.

Regulation is becoming politically popular. Grassroots movements like QuitGPT have gained momentum. A small number have turned to violence; a few weeks ago somebody threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman’s house. It’s not clear where all this leads. But the apocalyptic hype from tech leaders is not helping people stay calm.

4. AI for science is a very big deal.

It’s early days yet, but the potential for AI to help make a genuine and important scientific discovery is greater than ever.

Google DeepMind has developed Co-Scientist, a multipurpose tool that can help researchers dig up and compare previous results, generate hypotheses, and devise experiments to test them. OpenAI told me this year that its North Star is the goal of building a fully automated researcher by 2028.

Mathematicians are excited too. Fundamental math underpins many everyday technologies, from internet security to video streaming. The last few months have seen a string of claims that AI has cracked unsolved math problems. And software that can solve really hard math problems will be able—so the argument goes—to solve more general-purpose real-world problems too.

What are the downsides? Some scientists are warning that an overreliance on AI tools could narrow the scope of research because scientists may choose problems that are most suited to AI assistance. There are also concerns that AI-assisted research will lead to a flood of inaccurate or fake results: science slop.

5. AI is everywhere all at once.

So where does that leave us? There are a lot of exciting things, a lot of worrying things, and a lot of hot air. It can be exhausting to keep up, and yet it all feels inescapable. Some people will tell you we’re in a race to the top; some will tell you we’re in a race to the bottom. But it’s really not clear where we’re headed.

AI companies want us to march to their tune and buy into the propaganda about artificial general intelligence, whatever that means. They are selling a vision that feels inevitable, but it isn’t.

We’ve built a technology that can do humanlike things, and I think that makes it hard to get our heads around the fact that it is still just a technology.

Something is happening. Maybe even something comparable to the invention of electricity or the internet. But technologies like that take time to settle and bring lasting change.

Get ready for a marathon, not a sprint.

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Why this year’s World Cup ball may not fly as far

Much is new about this month’s FIFA World Cup tournament. It hosts more teams than ever before. It’s the first to occur in three different host countries. 

And, like every World Cup for over half a century, it will employ a football with a brand-new design.

Through wind-tunnel experiments, researchers found that long-distance kicks with Adidas’s new Trionda ball might not travel as far as they did in the past. The payoff is a more predictable flight path, something players have not always enjoyed from World Cup balls.

Find out how a few grooves and seams can change the way the game is played.

—Jenna Ahart

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 OpenAI plans to turn ChatGPT into a ‘super app’ before its IPO
The revamp would combine coding tools and AI agents. (Financial Times $)
+ The super app ambitions first emerged last year. (Fast Company)
+ OpenAI is also building a fully automated researcher. (MIT Technology Review)

2 Trump wants the US government to take a stake in AI companies
He will meet AI leaders to discuss the plan. (BBC)
+ Which would create “a partnership with the American public.” (Reuters $)
+ He wants a slice of the AI boom. (Axios)

3 Google has agreed to pay SpaceX $30 billion for AI computing power
The $920 million-a-month contract runs through June 2029. (NYT $)
+ Google will use about 110,000 Nvidia GPUs owned by SpaceX. (CNBC)
+ It comes days after Anthropic struck a SpaceX data center deal. (WSJ $)

4 AI is set to make everyday life more expensive
Its insatiable thirst for resources is likely to push up inflation. (WP $)
+ We did the math on AI’s energy footprint. (MIT Technology Review)

5 Europe is accelerating its withdrawal from US Big Tech
New analysis reveals dozens of moves to alternative providers. (Wired $) + Last week, the EU launched a “made in Europe” drive. (Reuters $)

6 ICE plans to give local police a new facial recognition app
It would allow them to verify a person’s immigration status. (404 Media)
+ Is the Pentagon allowed to surveil Americans with AI? (MIT Technology Review)

7 Silicon Valley’s lure is fading for India’s tech talent
Due to Trump’s immigration policies and AI-driven layoffs. (Rest of World) 

8 ‘Recursive self-improvement’ has sparked fears of AI escaping control
Nobody is sure about the consequences of RSI. (The Economist $)
+ Here are five ways that AI is learning to improve itself. (MIT Technology Review)

9 Gene-edited embryos are getting closer, but a key safety gap remains
Current techniques still fail to edit every cell. (New Scientist $)
+ “Base-edited baby” is one of our 10 Breakthrough Technologies for 2026. (MIT Technology Review)

10 NASA astronauts will wear high-tech Prada underwear on their moon trips
Ventilation tubes are knitted into the garments. (The Verge)

Quote of the day

“Chat is dead.” 

—A senior OpenAI employee tells the Financial Times why the company is shifting focus from chatbots to AI agents.

One More Thing

How AI is helping historians better understand our past

The digitization of historical records is making it possible to study the past in new ways. Historians are now using machine learning—particularly deep neural networks—to analyze everything from centuries-old astronomy textbooks to ancient Greek inscriptions.

The technology is helping researchers uncover new patterns in the historical record. But it also introduces risks, including the possibility that machine learning will slip bias or outright falsifications into our understanding of the past.

Read the full story on how AI is transforming the study of history.

—Moira Donovan

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ Take a tour of extinct everyday objects to travel back to pre-smartphone life.
+ This a cappella cover of “I Want To Know What Love Is” nails the power-ballad drama.
+ Korea’s ingenious “one-a-day” banana packs are designed so each one ripens sequentially.
+ Casino dialogue has been synced over Looney Tunes footage in this unexpectedly perfect mashup.

Much is new about this month’s upcoming FIFA World Cup tournament, which will be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico. It hosts more teams than ever before. It’s the first to occur in three different host countries. And, like predecessor cups for over half a century, it will employ a soccer ball with a brand-new design.

One group of researchers that has been testing the physics of World Cup balls for the past 20 years recently studied this new entry, called the Trionda. Made by Adidas, the Trionda features four red, green, and blue panels textured with deep grooves and maple leaf, green eagle, and star emblems to represent the three host countries. Through wind-tunnel experiments, the research team found that this ball improves over previous versions in some ways, but long-distance kicks might not go as far as they did in the past. 

“The simple picture is that Trionda may very slightly punish extreme distance, but it should reward clean technique and predictable flight,” says team member John Eric Goff, who researches sports physics and is an incoming professor of engineering practice at Purdue University. “Goalkeepers, defenders hitting long passes, and long-range shooters are where I would look first for visible differences.” 

TAKESHI ASAI, SUNGCHAN HONG, AND RICHONG LIU

Adidas has been designing new balls for each World Cup since the 1970s. Some of the design changes in the first few decades were aesthetic: The 1986 ball featured graphics inspired by Aztec temples for the Mexico tournament, and 1994’s had space graphics in honor of the moon landing’s 25th anniversary. There were some structural differences too, such as upgraded foam cores and improved water resistance. But by and large, the balls used the same design of 32 pentagonal panels stitched together. 

That changed in the 2006 World Cup in Germany, when Adidas introduced the +Teamgeist ball. It featured just 14 curved panels, which were thermally bonded together rather than stitched. The design helped keep moisture out so the ball wouldn’t grow heavier throughout the game, Goff says. It was around this time that he started studying soccer balls. In the years since then, he and his colleagues have followed the transformations as Adidas has released balls with different surface textures and even fewer panels—design changes significant enough to affect game play. 

In-flight motion

Goff discovered early on that by analyzing a ball’s trajectory data, he could derive its drag coefficient—a number that determines the air resistance it experiences midflight at a given speed. Shortly after, he began working with a team in Japan to analyze how the World Cup ball’s in-flight behavior changes with each new design. 

The experiments, carried out at the University of Tsukuba in Japan, have been purposely consistent over the years because “maintaining continuity is important for comparing new data with historical data sets,” says Takeshi Asai, a professor there who works on the experiments. They entail attaching the ball to a metal rod connected to an instrument called a force balance, which measures aerodynamic forces such as drag and lift as the ball is exposed to the same wind speeds it would experience in a real soccer game—seven to 35 meters per second. 

The team tests the ball in different orientations, “but you can only do a few because the Trionda ball is $170,” Goff says, and each new test effectively destroys it. The experiments show the team how the drag coefficient changes with speed, and Goff then writes code to simulate the ball’s overall trajectory as it flies through the air.  

The team’s analysis has shown how recent World Cup balls evolved since the eight-panel Jabulani ball for the 2010 event. The Jabulani faced much criticism from players—particularly goalkeepers, who said it had a deceptive trajectory that “dipped wickedly,” as one player told the Guardian. 

The 2010 Jabulani ball (left) had eight panels and a smooth texture that translated into unpredictable performance. Later balls, like the 2014 Brazuca (center) and this year’s Trionda (right), have fewer panels but more roughness.

The ball had one key flaw: It was too smooth. Even though its drag coefficient was relatively low at high speeds, once the ball slowed to a certain point the coefficient would ratchet up, causing it to lose speed quite fast and behave as the 2010 players complained. This sudden transition—called the drag crisis—occurs at higher speeds for smoother balls, but with added texture like seams and grooves, the transition can be avoided until a ball reaches lower speeds. This allows the ball to travel farther and generally behave in a more predictable way during typical play. 

“It’s the same reason why golf balls have dimples and baseballs have those nice 108 double stitches. If those rough features of those balls were not there, you would not get anywhere near the kind of distance when those balls are thrown or hit that you see now,” Goff says. “There has to be some kind of a roughness on the ball to move this transition to a smaller speed.”

New grooves

Subsequent designs have been able to push the drag crisis to lower speeds, according to the analysis by Goff and his colleagues. The Brazuca ball used in 2014, for instance, has only six panels, but their total seam length is much longer, adding to the surface’s roughness. And this year’s Trionda ball contains just four panels, but each panel also has three deep grooves for more texture. 

There’s a trade-off to this roughness, though. While Goff and his colleagues found that the Trionda ball experiences the drag crisis at the slowest speed since 2010, its drag coefficient is also higher than that of the other balls at high speeds. That means that even though the most dramatic change doesn’t happen until the ball is moving quite slowly, the ball will still slow down faster than its recent predecessors during the faster portion of its flight. So the trajectories of long kicks may be a few meters shorter, Goff says. Adidas did not respond to a request for comment.

Fortunately, players in the upcoming World Cup should already be familiar with these added nuances, as they’ve had access to the new ball for at least a few months. The ball, Goff notes, is quite similar to Nike’s Flight ball in design, so players who’ve spent more time with that ball may have an added advantage. 

Meanwhile, Goff continues sending the group’s papers to his colleagues FIFA and Adidas in hope of providing some new insights, and he’s been sent balls by Adidas in the past. Adidas does perform its own unpublished tests of each new ball. The New York Times reported last year that the Trionda’s 3.5-year testing process included robotics designed to kick the ball at specific speeds as well as testing in seven of the 16 host locations. 

But as Goff sees it, soccer is “the world’s most popular sport, [this is] its most important tournament, and the most important piece of equipment in that tournament is this ball right here,” indicating the the Trionda ball that he had on camera with him during our Zoom call. “I think they’re interested in what some external testing looks like.”

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

The Meta hack shows there’s more to AI security than Mythos

On Monday, reports emerged that attackers had used Meta’s AI customer support agent to steal Instagram accounts. Their approach was simple: they asked the agent to link the accounts to email addresses they controlled, and it complied.

Since Anthropic announced that its Mythos model was too good at hacking for a general release, cybersecurity concerns have focused on the risk of superpowered AI systems overwhelming computer infrastructure. But the Instagram hack shows that far simpler exploits can still cause damage.

As companies offload more work to AI, these comparatively unsophisticated attacks are becoming harder to ignore. Read the full story to understand why.

—Grace Huckins

Are AI chatbots making us lose control of our brains?

Gloria Mark, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, fears that digital technologies are weakening our cognitive abilities.

Her research suggests attention spans have fallen sharply over time, leading to higher stress and lower performance. She now believes AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude may accelerate this shift. “You’re deferring your cognitive work to AI,” she said. “And it’s not good for us.”

Mark argues this could weaken critical thinking and emotional intelligence. Luckily, she thinks we can course-correct by changing our relationship with these technologies.

Find out how AI could reshape attention and thinking.

—Jessica Hamzelou

This story is from The Checkup, our weekly newsletter giving you the inside track on all things biotech. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Thursday.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Anthropic has called for a global slowdown in AI development
It flagged the risk of models “self-improving.” (WSJ $)
+ And wants a coordinated plan to stop them. (Reuters $)
+ Skeptics note that the timing is awfully convenient. (The Register)

2 In a first, scientists have precisely edited human embryo genes
They relied on a newer gene-editing technique. (NYT $)
+ Genetically-modified babies could be on their way. (Guardian)
+ Companies have big plans for the technology. (MIT Technology Review)

3 US officials have discussed taking financial stakes in the AI firms
They’ve held talks about the government acquiring shares. (Reuters $)
+ Sam Altman pitched the idea to the White House last year. (WSJ $)

4 Bot web traffic has overtaken human web traffic
Cloudflare said 57.4% of traffic now comes from bots. (NBC News)
+ Its CEO expected the milestone at the end of 2027. (CNET)

5 The White House plans to bring AI doctors into American medicine
It wants chatbots to diagnose illness and prescribe medicine. (WSJ $)
+ But we don’t even know if healthcare AI actually helps patients. (MIT Technology Review)

6 Meta quietly added facial recognition code for smart glasses to its app
The exploratory feature would identify people via biometric data. (Wired $)
+ Smart glasses are also entering warfare. (MIT Technology Review)

7 South Korea’s labour minister wants tech firms to share AI profits
Kim Young wants staff and suppliers to get a share. (Reuters $)
+ He helped avert a huge strike over AI profit-sharing at Samsung. (NYT $)

8 Canada’s highly-anticipated AI strategy has launched
It promises over $2 billion in funding and aims to create 250,000 jobs. (BBC)
+ AI could strengthen democracy. (MIT Technology Review)

9 Investment in agricultural tech is booming
That’s good news at a time when we’re facing unprecedented levels of food market volatility. (The Economist $)

10 Bumblebees can use tools to solve problems, new research shows
Not just busy—they’re clever too! (Guardian) 

Quote of the day

“Welp, that happened faster than I predicted.” 

—Matthew Prince, co-founder and CEO of Cloudflare, one of the largest internet hosting services, reacts on X to reports that bots have overtaken humans in driving web traffic.

One More Thing

Inside the machine that saved Moore’s Law

In a Connecticut clean room, the Dutch company ASML is developing the world’s most advanced machine for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, a crucial process for manufacturing microchips.

The system has become vital to Moore’s Law—the observation that the number of transistors on a chip roughly doubles every two years as components shrink, driving gains in performance and efficiency. “Without this machine, it’s gone,” says Wayne Lam, a director of research at CCS Insight. “You can’t really make any leading-edge processors without EUV.”

Discover how ASML’s EUV technology saved Moore’s Law.

—Clive Thompson

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ Tech bosses love Tolkien. Here’s what the writer might think of them.
+ Rare footage captures an underwater volcano erupting beneath the Pacific Ocean.
+ Watch a tiny rescued cub grow into adulthood in this heartwarming tiger compilation.
+ This medieval version of “Take On Me” is like stepping into a tavern of synth-pop bards.

This week I’ve been at SXSW London. There’s been music, film, and a lot—and I mean a lot—of talk about AI. I also had the opportunity to sit down with Gloria Mark, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, who has spent the last 30 years studying how people interact with digital technologies.

Early in her career, the biggest concerns were the potential impacts of internet and email use on our brains. We may laugh those concerns off today, but it’s true that as the technologies became more ubiquitous and ingrained in our daily lives, our attention spans began to shrink.

Mark is worried that things are only getting worse. The title of our session was “Have we lost control of our brains?” Unfortunately, Mark told me, the answer is yes.

Around two decades ago, Mark started wondering about how our use of devices might affect our attention spans. She set up what she calls “living laboratories,” using sensors and trackers to monitor adult volunteers’ attention, mood, and behavior when they were using devices.

In 2003, she found that the average user had an attention span of around two and a half minutes. That’s how long people could spend focused on one thing before moving on to something else. “That surprised me at the time,” she told me during our session on Wednesday. “I thought: Wow, this is really short.”

But when she repeated the experiment in 2012, she found that attention spans had shrunk—all the way down to around 75 seconds on average, she said. In research she conducted between 2014 and 2020, attention spans shrank further still—to a mere 47 seconds, on average. Yikes.

And it’s not good for us. Mark told me that she’s found switching our attention so frequently is stressful. “We would have people wear heart rate monitors, and … we would see direct correlation between switching attention fast and stress going up,” she told me.

All this distraction makes it harder for us to get stuff done, too. “It just takes longer to do any single task if you’re switching your attention,” she told me. “It’s not great for performance. It’s not great for our emotional well-being.”

And that’s for adults. What about the effects of digital technologies on children? A few months ago, Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram) and Google’s YouTube were ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages to a 20-year-old woman who had accused the companies of creating products that led her to develop a childhood addiction.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Meta settled another lawsuit, this one brought by a rural school district in Kentucky. The district had also accused the company of designing addictive products that were harmful to students and had sought more than $60 million to cover the costs of their mental-health needs. Around 1,200 other school districts are taking similar legal action against social media companies.

But social media isn’t all bad, all the time. It can provide opportunities for some people, including those from marginalized groups, to form connections that might otherwise be difficult. A 2024 survey of LGBTQ+ teenagers found that while some described social media as a place of rejection and fear, others described it as a place where they felt a sense of belonging, where they could develop friendships and cultivate their identity.

In truth, we can’t definitively say what effects using social media is having on children across the board, says Mark. “There have been lots and lots of studies, and the evidence is to date inconclusive,” she told me. (Despite what you might read in best-selling books on the subject.)

Mark is hopeful that large, long-term studies might finally start shedding a bit more light on this question. An effort of this nature is underway in Australia, which enacted a social media ban for under-16s at the end of last year.

Given this uncertainty over a 20-year-old technology, I wondered if Mark had any thoughts on the potential impacts of AI—an obviously much newer offering that within the space of a couple of years appears to have become deeply integrated into our digital lives.

She told me she’s worried.

When we put in effort to do something—such as evaluating or summarizing content—we’re doing what’s known as “depth of processing,” she told me. “When you’re actively engaged with information, you’re processing it on a very deep level,” she said. “Then you’re more likely to learn it, to understand it, [and] to retain it.”

That’s not happening when most people use AI bots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. When we ask these tools to write, summarize, or evaluate for us, we’re no longer doing that depth of processing. “You’re deferring your cognitive work to AI,” she said. “And it’s not good for us.”

The risk is that our cognitive abilities will weaken over time. “If you’re not constantly exercising your muscles, they can atrophy,” Mark said. “And that’s exactly what can happen with our minds.” People with weaker critical thinking skills are more likely to fall prey to misinformation, she added.

Interactions with AI-powered “synthetic companions” can be just as harmful. Relationships between human beings take work—time, effort, and understanding. None of that is needed if you’re forming a relationship with a sycophantic bot. The “muscle” we risk atrophying here is emotional intelligence, which surveys suggest is already on the decline, said Mark.

She’s not painting a particularly rosy picture.

“If we continue on this trajectory, attention spans are diminished, loneliness is rising, boredom is rising, emotional intelligence decreasing, and actually our sense of purpose, according to studies, is also decreasing,” she said.

Luckily, she thinks we can course-correct by changing our relationship with these technologies. The key factor is effort.

The more effort we put into something, the deeper the satisfaction we stand to gain, Mark told me. That means making an effort to read a book rather than skimming its summary, and to meet with friends in person when you can. Try not to use GPS in places where you can probably manage without it.

“I love technology; we can’t give it up,” she told me. “[But] we have to learn how to create new life routines.”

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

On June 5, 404 Media reported that attackers had been using Meta’s AI customer support agent to steal Instagram accounts. Their approach was simple: They asked the agent to link the accounts to email addresses that they controlled, and the agent complied. One attacker broke into the dormant Obama White House account and made pro-Iran posts; others took over accounts with valuable, single-word handles, possibly in order to sell them.

AI cybersecurity concerns are nothing new. Since Anthropic announced in April that its Mythos model was too good at hacking to be released to the general public, commentators, researchers, and federal officials alike have fixated on the idea that superpowered AI systems could lay waste to our computer infrastructure. That’s not quite what this Instagram hack was: There, AI was the target rather than the attacker, and the method was far simpler than anything Mythos would cook up. But as companies offload more work to AI, these comparatively unsophisticated attacks could wreak their own havoc.

“As AI becomes more and more widely used—especially when AI is more and more widely used to automate our work flows, like account recovery—I think attackers are going to be more and more motivated to attack AI itself,” says Neil Gong, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Duke University.

Gong and other scholars have been issuing warnings about the security vulnerabilities of AI agents for a while. They publish papers and blog posts detailing exploits such as indirect prompt injection, which involves hijacking agents using commands hidden in websites, emails, or other seemingly anodyne data sources. Compared with these techniques, the Meta hack was practically mindless. The only complication that hackers had to overcome was using a VPN that matched the true account owner’s location; then they directly asked the support agent to change the account’s email address, and it complied.

Meta has not commented publicly on how this vulnerability slipped through the cracks. But given the simplicity of the exploit, Gong says, it should have been uncovered easily, before the agent was deployed. “It’s really surprising,” he says. “I don’t understand why they didn’t find this simple problem.”

Jessica Ji, a senior research analyst at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, agrees. “It raises questions like: Were there even guardrails in place?” she says. “Did anyone think to test for this kind of scenario?” She notes that the oversight is particularly striking coming from a company like Meta, which has extensive expertise in both AI and cybersecurity. Meta did not respond to a request for comment for this article, but on Monday a Meta spokesperson said on X that the vulnerability had been resolved.

As embarrassing a moment as this might be for Meta in particular, it also highlights some core vulnerabilities shared by all AI agents. Unlike traditional software, agents can respond in flexible—and unexpected—ways to new circumstances, which is why they might be able to substitute for human customer support agents. But AI agents can also be tricked in ways that humans wouldn’t be, and because they can take real-world actions, those mistakes have consequences. “A human would say, ‘Okay, why do you want to change the email address?’ and maybe respond with a security question,” says Somesh Jha, a professor of computer science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “What is going on with these agents is they’re very eager to finish the task. It’s almost like some elementary school student who just wants to please the teacher.”

But there are also countervailing forces. Companies want to deploy capable agents, and the more power an agent has—and the fewer guardrails it is subject to—the more work it can potentially take on. “Security and utility always have a trade-off,” says Bo Li, a professor of computer science at the  University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. And adequate red-teaming can be expensive. Defenders have to expend more resources than attackers do, because attackers only need to discover a single exploit, while defenders try to discover and patch as many as they can. When attackers are working toward something as valuable as a single-word Instagram handle, they’ll pour resources into finding exploits, so defenders have to spend even more money to protect that prize. 

As AI models continue to improve, hardening their defenses might actually get easier. Though the probabilistic nature of large language models means that LLM agents will always be vulnerable to some forms of attack, a more sophisticated model might have identified an attempt to change the email associated with the Obama White House account as suspicious. And AI systems can be used for agent red-teaming, much as participants in Anthropic’s Project Glasswing use Mythos to identify vulnerabilities in their software. 

Still, experts expect that the problem of securing AI agents will only become more pressing in the future. As agents grow more capable, companies that adopt them may want to give them more power, both to provide more services with fewer humans and to avoid being left behind by their competitors. In the fast-moving world of AI, the time needed to carefully secure risky agentic systems might seem like an unconscionable delay.

“Everybody wants to be the first to do something and just push things out without careful scrutiny and red-teaming,” Jha says. “I think it’s a very dangerous thing.”

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

How courts are coping with a flood of AI-generated lawsuits

Most days in her chambers, Judge Maritza Braswell, a federal magistrate judge in Colorado, sifts through stacks of documents written by people without a lawyer. The number of these filings has more than doubled compared to before 2023. She puts that jump down to AI. 

But while AI appears to be expanding access to justice, it doesn’t seem to be improving people’s chances of winning. Judges are starting to question what rights and duties chatbots should have as they stand in for lawyers. Lawmakers, meanwhile, are grappling with who should pay the price when chatbots produce bad legal advice.

Read the full story on how AI is reshaping access to the law.

—Michelle Kim

How virtual power plants could provide energy for data centers

Would you take a payment to ramp down your electricity use? Would it change anything if you were doing so to help power a local data center? A new project backed by Google will put those questions to the test.

The company has signed a deal to fund a virtual power plant in the largest power grid in the US. The system will group together devices like electric vehicles and smart thermostats, paying customers to adjust their usage when the grid is stretched.

The project could free up capacity for Google’s data centers—but there’s a catch: people might not play along. Find out what the future holds for these virtual power plants.

—Casey Crownhart

This story is from The Spark, our weekly newsletter giving you the inside track on all things climate. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 The EU has proposed new legislation to end its Big Tech dependence
The laws aim to boost domestic ​cloud, AI and semiconductors. (CNBC)
+ US firms would be blocked from critical public tenders. (Reuters $)
+ It also wants to make sure non-EU actors cannot disrupt tech services with a “kill switch.” (The Guardian)
+ But the proposal needs to be negotiated with EU member states. (Politico $)

2 Intelligence agencies warn Chinese spies are recruiting on LinkedIn
The Five Eyes alliance said Beijing is using job platforms for espionage. (BBC)
+ The spies are allegedly recruiting government and military staff. (Politico $)
+ The Chinese embassy in the UK condemned the accusations. (Bloomberg $)
+ Meet the man hunting the spies in your smartphone. (MIT Technology Review)

3 AI CEOs have called for a law protecting against biological weapons
They warn that synthetic DNA could be used for bioweapons. (Wired $)
+ Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Demis Hassabis joined the call. (WSJ $)
+ No one’s sure if synthetic mirror life will kill us all. (MIT Technology Review)

4 Firms are using Reddit to manipulate ChatGPT and Google AI search
They’re spamming subreddits to get posts scraped by chatbots. (404 Media)
+ What we’ve been getting wrong about AI’s truth crisis. (MIT Technology Review)

5 Meta keeps delaying the launch of its new AI model
The new Muse Spark ‌AI model API still has no release date. (WSJ $)
+ Which is hampering Meta’s plans to monetize its AI investments. (Reuters $)

6 For the first time, a US city has voted to permanently ban data centers
Monterey Park, California, voted in favor of the move. (LA Times)
+ Should we be moving data centers to space? (MIT Technology Review)

7 China is betting on household chore training to advance robotics
Data harvested in homes and factories provides a scaling edge. (Rest of World)
+ Gig workers are training humanoids at home. (MIT Technology Review)

8 Sam Altman will urge US lawmakers not to require AI model approvals
He’s advocating against proposals for new AI rules. (Reuters $)
+ His move comes after President Trump signed a new AI order. (Wired $)

9 Quantinuum raised $1.68 billion in an IPO as quantum computing rises 
Investors flocked to one of the fast-growing sector’s leaders. (Reuters $)

10 Someone finally wants to hire philosophers: Silicon Valley
Big tech hopes they will help build better machines. (The Atlantic $)

Quote of the day

“Historically, these companies have been very willing to play Russian roulette—and they’re playing another round.”

—Connor Leahy, an AI researcher, former hacker and US director of ControlAI, tells the Financial Times why he’s concerned about Anthropic’s relentless race to the top.

One More Thing

What an octopus’s mind can teach us about AI’s ultimate mystery

Emily Bender, a linguist at the University of Washington, has developed a thought experiment she calls the octopus test. It involves an octopus learning to copy patterns in human writing and produce squiggles in response. But does the animal actually understand the language or are we merely projecting meaning onto it?

Bender’s octopus is a stand-in for AI systems like ChatGPT. The intelligence we see in these machines is also projected on them by us. The same applies to consciousness: we may claim to see it, but it remains unclear whether it is really there.

Read the full story on the debate over machines with minds.

—Will Douglas Heaven

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ Discover where iconic sound effects actually came from in this fabulous audio history.
+ Need a serotonin boost? Then tune into this live puppy cam from Denali National Park.
+ Linux lovers can try 570 extinct operating systems at a new virtual museum.
+ Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” becomes something entirely different in this lightning-fast bass guitar performance.

Most days in her chambers, Judge Maritza Braswell, a federal magistrate judge in Colorado, sifts through stacks of documents written by people without a lawyer. Many of them can’t afford to hire a lawyer, and others have cases too weak or too small to interest one. She reads each one carefully, mindful of how daunting it is to walk into the courtroom alone. 

Lately, like many judges across the US, she has seen a noticeable uptick in such filings. According to a new study that examined 4.5 million federal civil cases from 2005 to 2026, the share of lawsuits brought by self-represented people increased from 11% in 2022 to 16.8% in 2025. Within those cases, the number of filings made more than doubled from pre-2023 levels. 

Judge Braswell puts that jump down to AI. 

“I do correlate that to AI in part because I see AI use,” she says. As a tech-savvy judge who uses AI to vet court documents, she’s learned to recognize how large language models write. She can tell from the prose and at times, hallucinated cases and fabricated quotes. 

“I’m also actually seeing better-drafted pleadings,” she says. 

But while AI appears to be expanding access to justice, it doesn’t seem to be improving people’s chances of winning. Judges are also starting to question what kinds of rights and responsibilities large language models should bear as they step into lawyers’ shoes. For example, they ask whether a chatbot has a duty to provide good advice, as a human lawyer does. And a growing number of lawmakers across the US are starting to grapple with who should pay the price when chatbots dish out bad legal advice. 

AI supercharges lawsuits

To test whether AI was driving the increase in lawsuits filed by people without a lawyer, the authors of the study, Anand Shah at MIT and Joshua Levy at the University of Southern California, ran 1,600 randomly sampled court documents through Pangram, a commercial AI-text detector. The share flagged as containing AI-generated writing rose from 1% in 2023 to 18% in 2026. 

To Judge Braswell, that’s not necessarily a cause for concern. While the surge of AI-assisted filings might be adding to their workloads, she and many other judges find the cases easier to rule on because AI is helping people without legal training better articulate their arguments. 

Court documents written by people without lawyers are notoriously hard to decipher. Some arrive as handwritten scrawls bordering on gibberish that judges take a while to decode. However cryptic, judges are required to read them charitably.

These days, Judge Braswell has been churning through motions drafted by AI faster than the ones written by the litigants. “I have to be really careful because some of them contain hallucinations and errors, but I can generally understand what they’re arguing better with AI assistance from them than without it,” she says.

The clearer filings let Judge Braswell hear them better. “If I understand an argument a little bit better, I’m probably going to be able to help a little bit more,” she says.

Online communities are springing up to trade self-help guides on using AI to sue. In December 2024, a viral Reddit post walked immigration applicants through suing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services over delayed review of their applications: draft a writ of mandamus with Microsoft Copilot, pay a lawyer $150 to polish it, and file in the expedient District of Vermont. Cases filed by people without lawyers in Vermont rose from about 45 a year before 2022 to more than 1,100 in 2024. 

Even so, people without lawyers are far more likely to lose their case than people with lawyers, and that’s not changing even with the addition of AI, the study found. 

“It turns out that mounting a lawsuit is a complex, multifaceted task. Not all of it is just drafting text,” says Levy. 

Chatbot-client privilege

Judge William Garfinkel, a federal magistrate judge in Connecticut, has served on the bench for three decades, pondering all sorts of questions about lawyers’ relationship with their clients. Lately, he has been wondering whether people’s conversations with chatbots dispensing legal advice should be privileged, the way their conversations with lawyers are. 

“You can make a good argument that … conversations with large language models like Claude or ChatGPT or Grok should deserve some protection,” he says.

Courts are starting to grapple with this question. In February, a federal court in Michigan ruled that a self-represented person’s conversations with ChatGPT to prepare her case were work product—legal work that is shielded from the opposing side.

The decision came on the same day a federal court in New York held that documents a criminal defendant had generated using Claude were not privileged attorney-client conversations or work product. The court argued that Claude is not an attorney and that a user has no “reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his communication” with it because AI companies can disclose user data to third parties. 

In March, Judge Braswell ruled that a self-represented person’s use of a chatbot should stay off limits. “It is true that AI systems like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and others … collect user data for training and other purposes. But … that does not eliminate all expectations of privacy,” she wrote. Courts have since remained split on the issue.

Malpractice without a pulse

Some judges are also wondering whether a chatbot, like a lawyer, has a duty to provide good legal advice. Judge Allison Goddard, a federal magistrate judge in California, has noticed that people without lawyers often get the wrong advice from ChatGPT when trying to assess the value of their case during settlement negotiations. In one case, a plaintiff who slipped and fell in a store asked for $700,000 from the store, which was wildly more than the case was worth.

“Where are you getting the idea that you’re getting $700,000? Did you go to ChatGPT?” Judge Goddard asked. “Well …” the plaintiff mumbled. She then walked the person through the law to explain why ChatGPT was wrong and suggested a lower amount. “It’s like Dr. Google went to law school,” she says.

Then there’s the question of who’s liable when a chatbot makes such mistakes. In March, Nippon Life Insurance Company sued OpenAI alleging that ChatGPT practiced law without a license and helped a woman reopen a lawsuit that was already settled, flooding the court with frivolous filings. “ChatGPT is not an attorney,” the lawsuit said. 

In May, OpenAI asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that ChatGPT does not practice law. “ChatGPT is not a person and neither has nor uses any degree of legal ​knowledge or skill,” OpenAI said in its filing. The case is still pending before the court.

States have started to weigh legislation that would hold AI companies liable when their chatbots offer bad legal advice. New York introduced a bill in March that would bar chatbots from impersonating lawyers, even if they notify ​users that they are interacting with chatbots. In Congress, a series of bills have been proposed to ban chatbots from posing as lawyers, doctors, and other licensed professionals. The bills have yet to gain traction.

For now, people will continue turning to AI to be their lawyer. For many of them, the rewards outweigh the risks. Not long ago, when Judge Braswell asked self-represented litigants why they wanted a particular piece of evidence, they mumbled timidly. Now, they answer her questions confidently, having rehearsed with a chatbot. 

“This is a really tough system to navigate. With AI, though, it gets a little less complex,” she says.

Would you take a payment to ramp down your electricity use? Would it change anything if you were doing so to help power a local data center?

Google just signed a new deal to help pay for a virtual power plant (VPP) in the largest power grid in the US. The agreement is with Voltus, a leading VPP and distributed energy resources platform.

Voltus will set up the virtual power plant, grouping together devices like electric vehicles and smart thermostats. It’ll pay customers to participate, and the company will dial back power or use the stored energy during times when the grid is stressed. Google will foot the bill for setting it up, and the extra capacity generated by the project will help run its data centers in the region.

This is one of the most concrete examples so far of a tech giant using a VPP to help meet energy demand for data centers. But there are still some lingering questions about just how far this sort of program can go, and what the limits are.

Last year, it felt as if everyone was talking about data center flexibility. A high-profile study from Duke University found that if data centers agreed to decrease their energy demand for roughly 40 hours per year, a whole bunch of them (about 100 gigawatts’ worth) could come online without making new power plants or transmission equipment necessary.

The underlying reason is that our power grid is designed not for our average energy use, but for the absolute maximum: the brutally hot July evening when everyone is blasting their air conditioners, watching Love Island, and microwaving popcorn. If a data center is willing to refrain from pulling so much power during those high-stress times, the grid can happily support it the rest of the year.

One lingering question here is about incentives: How would you get data centers to agree to this? After all, they might not have a very flexible load, especially now that AI use is more widespread—training a model can easily be delayed or shifted, but customer demand is more immediate. Giving up computing capacity could mean losing revenue.

Regulation is one approach that could work here. One proposal in the US would allow new data centers to come online years sooner if they agree to lower demand when the grid is nearing its max.  And a new Texas law requires large users to switch to backup power or curtail their demand in emergency situations.

Another approach is for data center operators to pay for other people to be flexible.

Voltus announced a new program in September that allows data centers to finance flexibility on their local grid. The company calls it “Bring your own capacity.” Google is now the first named customer taking advantage of this program.

In the new agreement, Voltus will pay people who agree to participate in the virtual power plant. The plant will be part of PJM, the grid that covers much of the US East Coast. The company says it will be able to aggregate up to 100 megawatts of distributed energy resources each year. The plant should be operational in 2027, according to Voltus.

This isn’t Google’s first foray into flexibility; the company has agreements with utilities across the US to limit or shift its own energy demand, which can help free up grid capacity. As the company pointed out in a blog post earlier this year, though, there are limits on how flexible a data center can be, and not every facility will be able to ramp down its power demand.

“There is no one solution for expanding grid capacity and we’re continuing to explore all options, including the many avenues for load flexibility,” said Michael Terrell, Google’s global head of advanced energy, in an emailed statement in response to written questions.

Once again, I’m wondering about incentives here. These companies are asking homes and businesses to be flexible. Will they agree?

A recent study in California looked at local people’s willingness to participate in managed electric-vehicle charging. Essentially, the program pays people to give up control of when they charge their EVs. This is another way to help smooth out electricity demand and ease the burden on the grid.

The problem? Not many people signed up. With no economic incentive, only 1% of EV owners enrolled in managed charging. At $40 per month (about 15% of their power bill), only 4.6% did.

This is a different situation and a different region from the one in which Google is working with Voltus. (It’s worth noting that the companies aren’t sharing how much they plan to pay the participants, which will obviously be a big determinant in participation for this kind of project.) 

But this study shows that even with money on the table, people may not always jump at the chance to cede control of their electricity demand. And it certainly feels relevant that about 70% of Americans oppose AI data centers in their area, according to recent Gallup polling. 

Being flexible sounds like a great idea in theory, and these financed VPPs could provide an immediate route to meeting energy demand. But as we move from idea to implementation, it’ll be interesting to see whether trial runs work as intended.  

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. 

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

5 key points in Trump’s new AI order

Less than two weeks after scrapping an executive order on AI, President Donald Trump signed a new one on Tuesday. Promising to promote innovation and security, the policy represents a turning point in the White House’s AI governance—but is likely to attract criticism from both opponents and supporters of stricter regulation. Here are five key points from the order:

1. It’s created a voluntary review system: tech companies will be asked to share frontier models with the government for review 30 days before they plan to release them.
2. There’s no mandatory licensing: the government will not require permits before software can be deployed.
3. It establishes a dedicated AI cybersecurity clearinghouse: the new hub will coordinate security checks with the private sector.
4. It’s a watered-down version of the order Trump shelved last month: the earlier version requested models 90 days before their release.
5. But it’s still a move towards stronger AI oversight: the policy marks a clear departure from the White House’s previous hands-off approach.

Plus: here’s why a previous Trump administration’s AI policy was a distraction and how AI is already making online crimes easier. 

MIT Technology Review Narrated: inside Anduril and Meta’s quest to make smart glasses for warfare

The defense-tech company Anduril has shared new details about the augmented-reality headset for the military it’s prototyping with Meta, including a vision for ordering drone strikes via eye-tracking and voice commands.

Quay Barnett, who leads the effort at Anduril following a career in the Army’s Special Operations Command, aims to optimize “the human as a weapons system.” His vision is cyborg-inspired: drones and soldiers will see together, share information seamlessly, and make decisions as one.

—James O’Donnell

This is our latest story to be turned into an MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we publish each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 President Trump has signed an AI order that expands model oversight
The long-awaited executive order aims to mitigate security threats. (NYT $)
+It asks companies to submit models voluntarily for tests before release. (NPR)
+ It’s a slimmed-down version of the order Trump shelved in May. (WSJ $)
+ And marks a strategic shift in his AI strategy. (Reuters $)
+ A war over AI regulation is coming to the US. (MIT Technology Review)

2 SpaceX plans to raise $75 billion in IPO at $135 per share
The company intends to sell 555.6 million shares. (Reuters $)+ The fixed price breaks from the traditional IPO process. (Bloomberg $)
+ Morningstar says the valuation should be nearly 50% lower. (BI)

3 Meta has scaled back plans to track workers’ clicks and keystrokes to train AI
All staff can pause it for 30 minutes, with some fully exempt.(The Information $)
+ The changes follow a fierce backlash to the tracking plans. (Reuters $)
+ AI is supercharging surveillance. (MIT Technology Review)

4 Microsoft wants to ‘make users addicted’ to its new AI assistant
According tointernal documents for the “Scout” tool. (404 Media)
+ Microsoft launched the assistant on Tuesday. (TechCrunch) 

5 Mathematicians fear that AI threatens their field
A new declaration raises concerns about AI’s trustworthiness. (Ars Technica)
+ It arrives a week after OpenAI said it solved a famous math problem. (WSJ $)
+ A startup wants to change how mathematicians do math. (MIT Technology Review)

6 Scientists have found a way to supercharge computer worms with AI
The worm could target any known flaw in the world’s computers. (NYT $)
+ AI supercharging scams. (MIT Technology Review)

7 Google must let UK publishers opt out of AI search features
Online publishers can choose not to appear in the AI Overviews. (BBC)
+ Google is now testing features for sites to exit AI search. (Reuters $)

8 America’s data center build-out is falling way behind schedule
60% of those planned for completion in 2027 aren’t yet under construction. (WSJ $)
+ Nobody wants a data center in their backyard. (MIT Technology Review)

9 EVs are getting cheaper worldwide—except in the US
The US is short on supportive policies and affordable Chinese EVs. (Rest of World)

10 The European Parliament is ditching Google for… Qwant
The French search engine is the new default on in-house computers. (Politico)
+ The switch comes amid a broader push to wean the EU off US tech. (FT $)

Quote of the day

“SpaceX’s valuation could be richer than a plate of dauphinoise potatoes.”

—Dan Coatsworth, head of markets at AJ Bell, tells CNBC that SpaceX’s IPO price looks overloaded with expectations.

One More Thing

Marseille’s battle against the surveillance state

Heading toward Marseille’s central train station, Eda Nano points out what looks like a streetlamp on the Rue des Abeilles. But this sleek piece of urban furniture is not a lamp. It’s a video camera, with a 360-degree view of the narrow street.

Nano, a 39-year-old developer, wants to make Marseille residents more aware that they’re being watched. She’s part of a growing group of activists resisting the rise of policing cameras in their hometown.

Find out how the rebellious port city of Marseille is fighting the surveillance state.

—Fleur Macdonald

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ These aerial photos of solar farms transform renewable energy into abstract art.
+ Open a window over Earth’s water with this hypnotic 4K atmospheric film made from satellite imagery.
+ Spend three relaxing hours with David Attenborough narrating this collection of extraordinary wildlife moments.
+ Radiohead sounds beautiful on traditional Japanese instruments in this koto performance of “Weird Fishes/Arpeggi”.

Correction: This story originally contained a misspelling of the name of the company Qwant. We apologize for the error.