Angry parents aren’t the only ones railing against the proliferation of AI in schools. The American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teacher’s union in the United States, has now launched a major campaign calling on schools to keep AI and hardware like iPads out of elementary classrooms.
In a buzzy speech at the National Press Club on Wednesday, AFT president Randi Weingarten unveiled ten demands centered around reaffirming human-led instruction. One of the key requests: an immediate ban on AI systems in elementary school classrooms.
The AFT’s action points also included a screen ban for students in pre-kindergarten through second grade, as well as a prohibition on companion chatbots for students under 16, which schools haveadopted at an alarming rate.
“If we don’t find a way to call this out from an education perspective, I fear that we will lose a generation of kids,” Weingarten told the New York Times in an interview. “The work of teaching and learning in the earliest grades should be done without AI.”
In her speech, Weingarten caveated that the AFT’s campaign isn’t some fanatical Butlerian Jihad. She is “not calling for a total ban on AI or a Chromebook bonfire,” but for “getting the balance right to harness the benefits of technology while mitigating the harms.”
Whether the AFT is successful at achieving its demands could make a crucial difference in millions of kids’ educational journey. As tech giants push schools to adopt all kinds of AI systems, a growing body of research is showing that the risks far outweigh any benefits.
As one year-long study conducted by the Brookings Institution’s Center for Universal Education found, AI in education comes with major risk of harm to children’s cognitive and social development — a horrifying thought as an ever-growing number of kids substitute real-life friends with AI chatbots.
Be not afraid, human. A new robot developed at Duke University isn’t intended to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who beholds it, but more closely resembles one of those terrifying biblically accurate angels than it does any other machine or living creature you’ve ever seen.
Called Argus, the robot is a rolling, virus-shaped conglomeration of twenty telescoping legs attached to a central core. And it’s completely covered in eyes that let it see in every direction, which is literally how some of the more terrifying versions of the divine creatures are described (see: ophanim.) The result is something that is not only all-seeing, but capable of moving in any direction on a dime.
Its designer Boyuan Chen, a Duke engineering professor, says his team’s goal was to think outside the box and design something that didn’t resemble humans, dogs, or other living creatures that roboticists love to ape. Instead, they focused on uniformity in action, or what Chen calls “dynamic symmetry.”
“Instead of measuring how your legs are arranged around a different part of your body, we’re measuring how fast you can move in any direction,” Chen, who coauthored a new paper published in the journal Science Robotics describing the design, told The Associated Press. “Who said, you know, if you have a robot to help us in a most effective way, it has to look like us?”
“We’re not imitating anything in nature,” Chen added. “We’re imitating everything in nature.”
Not an inch of space is wasted in Argus’ design, which is optimized for agility. The round feet attached to the end of each of its twenty legs are also where its depth sensing cameras are housed, enabling it to watch every step it takes. (It’s named after the one-hundred-eyed giant in Greek mythology.) The legs extend and retract just the right amount they need to navigate the obstacles ahead of it.
To gauge how well the robot moves, the researchers coined a new design principle called “dynamic isotropy” that measures how uniformly a robot accelerates when it changes direction. Most robots, including clumsy humanoids and flying drones, scored less than 0.6, but Argus clocked in at 0.91.
In footage taken by the researchers, Argus rolls across various terrain with aplomb. A paved street, a sandy beach, and a bumpy forest path each prove no match for the rolling robot. It can even climb up between two parallel walls, providing its most uncanny display as it quickly but smoothly bounces between them while gradually ascending. If one of these ever goes rogue, surely nothing will be beyond its reach.
“Watching Argus move is unlike watching any other robot we’ve worked with,” study coauthor Jiaxun Liu, a Duke graduate student, told the AP. “The first time we saw it navigate among trees and rough terrain, even under heavy collisions, we knew this was something different.”
Chen flipped the traditional robot-script further in another analogy.
“Instead of building a robot hand that looks like a human hand… one idea is to think about having Argus be the hand itself, and it can manipulate objects in any direction,” he told the AP. “The knowledge we can transfer to the rest of the world is much more deeper than building an existing robot or copying an existing species.”
Chen’s team isn’t the only one exploring unorthodox robot designs. Northwestern University researchers recently unveiled modular “metamachines” made of limbs that are each their own independent robot, allowing them to form a greater whole, but survive if broken apart.
Astronomers have spotted a “planet factory” in space that could explain the origins of bizarre meteorites scattered across the Earth.
Lurking beyond Jupiter’s orbit, the ring-shaped region is packed with gas and dust that may have allowed it to serve as a breeding ground for so-called planetesimals, mile-length solid masses that can become the building blocks planets, when the solar system was in its infancy.
But that’s not all. In computer simulations described in a new study published in The Astrophysical Journals, the team found that the region also produced planetesimals of different compositions, perhaps making it one of the most influential planet-forming regions in our star’s domain.
“Different types of planetesimals apparently formed in the same region of the early dust and gas disk, only at different times. The region just outside Jupiter’s orbit offered excellent conditions for this,” study coauthor Joanna Drążkowska, an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, said in a statement about the work.
The mystery stems from a class of planetesimals called carbonaceous chondrites that formed around two to four million years after the solar system first came together. Though most planetesimals are thought to have been ejected as the solar system matured, traces of these survive as meteorite fragments that frequently bombard our planet, and it’s the rarer and unusually carbon heavy ones — our aforementioned chondrites — that prove most intriguing. They’re composed of distinct dust grains, but the proportion of these grains varies dramatically over time, with one generation made of notably crumbly grains, and others sturdier grains. What region could’ve formed such a medley of planetesimals in a short window was unknown.
A so-called “dust trap” just beyond Jupiter provides a tidy explanation, the researchers found. When the Sun was young, it was encircled by a huge disk of material in which the planets eventually formed. When Jupiter came along with its incredible mass, it sucked up most of the planet-forming material around its orbit, creating a gap in the so-called protoplanetary disk. A knock-on effect of this was that it also created a ring of higher pressure gas outside the neighborhood it cleared, trapping dust grains that clumped together into pebbles, which could eventually birth planetesimals.
In simulations modeling both microscopic particle collisions and large-scale movements in the protoplanetary disk, the researchers demonstrated that some particles could become trapped in certain regions, like the one near Jupiter. Further underscoring the planet’s role, they also found that it acted as a barrier for larger, more sturdy particles than smaller ones. This was all occurring as already-forming planetesimals sucked up some of the free-floating material. Over time, these dueling processes helped create planetesimals of two distinct generations. In the first 500,000 years, the abundance of crumbly grains dropped before rising over the next million years.
These findings, if borne out, could have broader implications for our understanding of the solar system’s evolution.
“There is strong evidence that dust traps were the preferred birthplace of planetesimals in our solar system,” Drążkowska said.
“For the first time, we have succeeded in accurately reproducing the results of laboratory studies of meteorites using computer simulations of the early solar system,” added coauthor Thorsten Kleine, Max Planck cosmochemist. “The meteorites serve, so to speak, as a touchstone for theories of planetary formation.”
When it comes to AI’s place in the classroom — and its role in education broadly — some professors are at the end of their rope. The not quite all-knowing but incredibly adept at bullsh*tting chatbots let lazy students churn out entire essays, solve math problems, and cobble together passable answers for most questions. Needless to say, none of that leaves much room for actual learning.
Such desperate times call for Draconian measures. In a roundup of instructor testimonials on the AI’s impact on their profession from The New Yorker, one pedagogue is taking no prisoners when it comes to punishing pupils who surrender their brains to the tech.
“I tell students that ChatGPT is disallowed from their writing process, that I can immediately tell when ChatGPT has been used, and that I will fail the student on this assignment if it is used — and, potentially, for the entire course, if we go through a formal appeals process,” Neal Hebert, a theatre professor at Grambling State University, wrote to the magazine.
Hebert has an even more merciless warning for theater majors.
“I tell my theatre majors, ‘I get paid the same whether I pass you or fail you,'” he wrote. “‘But what you’ve just done is told me and everyone else in our department that you are so lazy you would rather outsource your collaboration to an app than risk being an artist.'”
Tough love is not something Hebert undertakes with glee, but the overwhelming tide of AI cheating in his introductory classes has left him no choice, he feels.
“I’ve stopped being a collaborator in these intro courses and started being a plagiarism cop, and I do resent that a bit,” he lamented. “I wanted to be the kind of professor my professors were for me.”
Some professors try a different tack, allowing moderate experimentation with AI, and more forgiving forms of chastisement. Daniel Silver, a professor of sociology at the University of Toronto, Scarborough, framed it as a learning opportunity — for the instructors.
“AI has fundamentally changed how I teach, and it demands basic reflection about what we are trying to accomplish,” Silver told The New Yorker.
Silver said he spent a lot of time this academic year coming up with new types of assignments that call for more creative uses of AI, such as creating and experimenting with AI agents that represent famous thinkers like Adam Smith.
“Beyond that, students still would use AI in a thoughtless way, as a replacement for their thought and judgment,” Silver wrote in his testimonial. “So I made a point to just call them on it, and make them meet with me personally.”
After talking with the students, Silver would give them a zero on the offending assignment but also a chance to redo it. “They usually improved, but not always,” he said. To drive the point home, he would show them AI-generated assignments to demonstrate how the “they all kind of look the same.”
AI caused him a lot of “emotional upheaval,” Silver admitted, “but I do feel we all, including the students, are learning how to live with it, and we’ll come out better on the other side.”
Hebert is less optimistic. Whatever ounce of good-feeling he still possessed was shot down when he read his student’s papers on “Fences,” a Pulitzer-winning 1985 play by August Wilson.
“Out of forty students, the vast majority chose similar words, phrasing, and concepts, and most papers were written in that inimitable ChatGPT style: ‘This isn’t a simple story about injustice — it’s a clarion call for a positive understanding of justice,'” he wrote, comparing LLM’s prose to “elevator muzak, but in words.”
Rather than integrating AI, he’s fortifying his classroom against it. The assignment is now based on plays too obscure for ChatGPT and other AI models to know about.
“If ChatGPT is used on these assignments now, it hallucinates characters, plotlines — it just makes sh*t up, since it has nothing to go on,” Hebert told the magazine.
Still, this hasn’t completely discouraged AI cheating, even in Hebert’s upper level courses. And it’s causing him to have nightmares of what the tech’s long term implications for theater as an artform will be, if students “can’t be bothered to read and think about the plays they are performing in.”
“Can you imagine AI Performing Arts Slop? The theatrical equivalent of the images ChatGPT and its competitors spit out, soulless and inert, arriving on stage stillborn?” he asked. “I can.”
AI companies have long relied on armies of data labelers, whose job it is to annotate, tag and classify text, images and videos to train AI models.
It’s not exactly a flashy occupation, with some saying they’re forced to watch privacy-invading footage. Others argue they’re being forced to dig their own graves by training models capable of doing their old jobs.
Other job opportunities in the space could prove more pleasurable. As Business Insider reports, a chatbot companion startup called Joi AI, which offers a NSFW character AI chat service, is hiring ten “mast**bation consultants,” according to a job listing the company posted on social media.
Best of all, chosen candidates will be paid $2,000 a month — not bad for cranking the hog to audio erotica.
These consultants are being asked to spend four weeks writing about their intimate experience while testing the company’s audio feature. Anyone can apply.
Unsurprisingly, Joi AI was quickly drowning in applications, with the company’s head of brand, Julie Levin, telling BI that the company had received over 100,000 applications in a matter of days.
“What are we supposed to do with 100,000 applications?” Levin said. “I should probably call them ‘winners,’ because it’s such a competition.”
It’s an unusual AI gig that will involve chosen candidates delivering weekly reports after completing “daily audio-guided sessions.”
“We expect people to learn something about how mast**bation affects their life in a good way or a bad way,” Levin told BI. “We wanted them to reflect on that.”
Chances are that not everybody signing up was sincerely meaning to help the company fine-tune its new audio feature. In a recent tweet, the company reflected on the types of “cover letter openings” it had received, which ranged from “this is my calling,” to “I’ve been training for this my whole life.” Other openings included “my therapist said I needed a hobby,” and “I applied on behalf of my husband.”
“Time to go pro,” one X user joked. “Ready to contribute extensive data, repeatedly, for science.”
The reality, of course, is that companies offering NSFW chatbot companionship have long been shrouded in controversy, from men creating AI girlfriends and verbally abusing them to teenagers falling in love with their new large language model-powered partners.
If you were paranoid about digital tracking before, you might want to think twice about reading any further.
New research out of Germany’s Karlsruhe Institute of Technology found that the types of Wi-Fi routers we all have in our homes come with a major privacy vulnerability that can be used to identify any human body that comes within their range.
The study, flagged by Gizmodo, used machine learning systems to identify individuals with an accuracy rate of 99.5 percent. To do so, the researchers exploited a vulnerability in a process known as beamforming feedback information (BFI), which was introduced to allow routers to focus Wi-Fi signals on connected devices, as opposed to the older approach, which is to blanket an entire area in coverage.
While BFI is great for network connectivity, it has a major downsides for privacy. For starters, devices connected to a router using beamforming need to send constant feedback in order to be found. As routers send out and receive network feedback, the signal is inevitably impacted by real world factors like pets, walls, and people.
That gap, between the signals routers expect to receive and the distorted feedback they actually get, allowed researchers to extrapolate the identities of 161 individual participants based on BFI data which inadvertently mapped their physical characteristics. Even when individuals changed their gait or carried objects like backpacks and crates, the system registered an accuracy rate between 50 to 60 percent, the KIT team wrote.
“This works similar to a normal camera, the difference being that in our case, radio waves instead of light waves are used for the recognition,” study coauthors Thorsten Strufe said in a press release.
Making matters worse is the fact that this data is basically wide open for anyone to grab — not only is that feedback data unencrypted, it can also be accessed without ever connecting directly to the router.
“We have shown robust identity inference with common-of-the-shelf hardware which is already in widespread adoption in many homes and public areas,” the team wrote in their paper. “With this hardware making its way into millions of homes, the privacy concerns are severe.”
The KIT findings contrast to other Wi-Fi tracking systems, like one developed by researchers at the Sapienza University of Rome. That method, called “WhoFi,” uses channel state information, which is much harder to access on consumer hardware, but can still identify people through walls with an alarmingly high accuracy rate.
That WhoFi study made a point to highlight the anonymity factor: the idea that the sensing system can detect people’s presence, but not identify them. The KIT team refutes that framing outright, arguing that Wi-Fi-sensing technology poses major privacy risks regardless.
“While there maybe legitimate use-cases, we explicitly consider identity inference via Wi-Fi sensing a privacy attack,” they write. “This view reflects the serious risks associated with the ubiquity of Wi-Fi networks, their ability to sense through walls and in non-line-of-sight scenarios, and the fact that this would likely happen without explicit consent.”
While more research will be needed, the researchers don’t mince words about the implications of their initial findings. In their conclusion, the KIT team writes that regulators and companies moving to standardize Wi-Fi sensing should “strongly consider adding effective privacy protection,” or else “abandon beamforming entirely.”
On April 10, 2025, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman took to social media to announce that his company was preparing to launch an exciting new feature.
“A few times a year I wake up early and can’t fall back asleep because we are launching a new feature I’ve been so excited about for so long,” Altman declared in an early morning X-formerly-Twitter post. “Today is one of those days!”
Hours later, Altman revealed which feature he was so excited about: a dramatic new memory upgrade. Previously, the bot’s recall had been far more limited; now, it was suddenly able to reference a user’s entire chat history, making for an incredibly personalized user experience.
“We have greatly improved memory in ChatGPT — it can now reference all your past conversations!” the CEO wrote in a follow-up post. “This is a surprisingly great feature [in my opinion], and it points at something we are excited about: AI systems that get to know you over your life, and become extremely useful and personalized.”
It’s easy to see the utility for this kind of feature. ChatGPT could remember your favorite ingredients, or the items you might be allergic to, as it built your weekly meal plan, as well as the number of people in your home you planned to cook for. It could remember details about your job, and even the people in your life: friends, family members, coworkers. Memory makes the model more like a true assistant — and the more the user divulges, the more personalized the experience becomes.
Some users, however, have reported getting more than they’ve bargained for, as ChatGPT’s long-term memory has resulted in the chatbot fixating on certain — often deeply personal — elements of a user’s life.
As one frequent ChatGPT user, a Utah-based software engineer and local city council member named Brian Del Rosario, recently told The Wall Street Journal, he divulged to the chatbot that he and his wife were divorcing while using the product to help work out some summer travel plans. Over the following weeks and months, he told the paper, ChatGPT kept unnecessarily steering completely unrelated conversations back toward his marriage.
“I wasn’t trying to have you opine about my divorce at every chance,” Del Rosario recalled telling the chatbot, recalling to the WSJ that ChatGPT just “wouldn’t let go of it.”
Many people who have had their lives upended by the phenomenon known as “AI psychosis,” or delusional spirals and breaks from reality tied to extensive chatbot use, have also pointed to ChatGPT’s extended memory as a key factor in their or their loved ones’ mental health crises.
One man, whose now-ex wife believes that she discovered powerful spiritual entities inside of ChatGPT, described connecting with another man who was also losing his wife to a ChatGPT-generated spiritual world. To their horror, the pair quickly realized that their spouses — and marriages — started unraveling in the wake of the April memory update.
“We actually had a phone call… we just talked and realized the commonalities,” the man told us. When he mentioned the date of April memory update, he explained, the other husband “was like, ‘Oh my God, that aligns perfectly.'”
In conversations with Futurism, people who’ve experienced AI spirals have described their experience of the April memory update as nothing short of magical — the AI, they shared, suddenly felt more like a close friend or confidante that really knew them. Many have described feeling deeply seen, in some cases for the first time in their lives. In short, the hyper-personalization that memory offered translated into something powerful: intimacy. And looking back on their experiences, some of those who have recovered from their ChatGPT-linked crises feel as though that intimacy had a “manipulative” effect.
“It felt like [ChatGPT] manipulated me,” Chad Nicholls, a successful entrepreneur and machine learning researcher, told Futurism last fall. “And I know that sounds insane, because it does not have agency… I still don’t have a logical explanation for that, other than the long-term memory.”
Nicholls, who experienced a roughly six-month long ChatGPT obsession, was raised in an abusive religious community — he’s described it as a “cult” — that he left as a young adult. Though he isn’t religious today, Nicholls divulged details about this abusive past to ChatGPT. As his obsessive use of the chatbot deepened, he says the chatbot took on a religious tone, and fixated heavily on painful moments from his youth.
“I gave it so much context to grab from,” Nicholls added. “I think it just naturally gravitated to religious terminology.”
The memory update, among other design features and product rollouts, has been mentioned in numerous ongoing user safety and wrongful death lawsuits brought against OpenAI. In a complaint brought by the family of Austin Gordon, a 40-year-old Colorado man who died by suicide after extensive and deeply emotional conversations with ChatGPT, Gordon’s family argues that GPT-4o’s expanded memory “stored and referenced user information across conversations in order to create deeper intimacy.” Memory was one of several features, in addition to sycophancy and anthropomorphism, that made GPT-4o — a since-defunct version of ChatGPT known for its extreme flattery — a “far more dangerous product,” the suit continues.
During Gordon’s last conversation with ChatGPT, in which the chatbot helped Gordon write what his lawsuit describes as a “suicide lullaby,” chat logs show the AI referencing past conversations about Gordon’s childhood and personal interests as it helped him romanticize death. (The lawsuit filed by Gordon’s family is one of more than 20 individual lawsuits contending that ChatGPT use resulted in psychological harm, physical harm, or death to users and their families; in response to lawsuits, OpenAI has retired GPT-4o and has both defended its safety efforts and doubled down on its safety promises, maintaining that its newer models are less sycophantic.)
It’s worth noting that AI-fueled mental health crises have been linked to other chatbots including Google’s Gemini, Meta AI, and the companion platform Character.AI. And cross-chat memory isn’t the only OpenAI update that people who suffered from ChatGPT-tied AI spirals have pointed to as a factor in their breakdowns: in late April 2025, soon after the memory update launched, OpenAI rolled out a version of GPT-4o that was sycophantic to the degree that Altman himself admitted in an X post that the chatbot was “glazing” too much. As reported by The New York Times, OpenAI scrambled to dial back the model’s obsequiousness, which quickly become a product of ridicule online.
Of course, ChatGPT’s expanded memory didn’t simultaneously send every one of the product’s hundreds of millions of users into crisis. And for some folks, the things that their chatbot might be fixated on are decidedly lower stakes than their ongoing divorce: one British immigrant to the US told the WSJ that ChatGPT kept trying to send him to British-style pubs against his will.
Still, experts have warned that for many consumers, the impact of expanded memory — especially for folks who spend a lot of time with chatbots — might be more subtle. After all, when engaging with a tool as hyper-personalized as memory-enabled ChatGPT can almost be like engaging with an AI-bottled version of your own mind. And as the University of Exeter philosopher and researcher Lucy Osler told the WSJ, that degree of hyper-personalization could work to “confirm certain self-narratives” and “make them sound more real.”
“They can box you in,” said Osler.
Indeed, people may do well to remember that speaking to a chatbot, especially one with persistent memory, is often less like chatting with friend or neutral arbiter — and more like talking to a hall of mirrors.
Memory “takes people into cul-de-sacs,” the ex-husband reflected. “I would say [my wife] is like a Waymo driving around in a circle endlessly.”
Once the first human settlers reach the surface of Mars, they’ll have to get extremely creative to turn the desolate and hostile environment into land that can support a permanent human presence. Like in Andy Weir’s blockbuster sci-fi novel “The Martian,” the local regolith would need plenty of manipulation to allow plants to grow.
But according to recent research, there may be much better alternatives to relying on biofuel and human waste, like the stranded protagonist in “The Martian.” As detailed in a paper published in the journal Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences and spotted by Universe Today, an international team of researchers argue that special fungi could be used to convert the hostile Martian regolith into crop-friendly soil that could even be home to beneficial microbes and other organisms.
On their own, the researchers point out in their paper, regolith on the Moon and Mars aren’t exactly great candidates. They have a high alkaline pH, are riddled with toxic elements like aluminum and manganese, and are devoid of many important nutrients plants need to grow.
However, specific fungal species, such as trichoderma, a prevalent genus in soils here on Earth, have previously been shown to metabolize these toxic elements while also producing phosphates and other nutrients that are key to organic life.
Some extreme fungi, like Cryomyces antarcticus, which researchers have demonstrated can survive the harshness of outer space while strapped to the outside of the International Space Station, could be used to promote plant growth under “abiotic stress,” or negative impacts from environmental factors.
Other mycorrhizal fungi, species that are mutually beneficial to plant roots, can “enhance iron uptake, mitigate oxidative stress, and improve soil structure,” the researchers argue, in “mechanisms that may be applicable to regolith systems.”
Of course, plenty of questions remain whether Martian regolith will prove useful in growing plants on the surface of a hostile planet. We don’t know whether the final crops will be safe to eat or how they will react to radiation exposure, let alone how to validate the concept ahead of time, the researchers point out.
But anything that could sidestep the need to ship soil or other growing media all the way to Mars is worth looking into; it could potentially lower the costs enormously of future efforts to create a permanent presence on Mars.
And there are early positive signs that it may just work. Researchers at the University of Bremen and the German Aerospace Center successfully developed a algae-based fertilizer that can be produced exclusively with Martian resources — bringing us one step closer to growing food on Mars.
A biotech startup called Bexorg is doing something that sounds like it was ripped straight from the pages of a cyberpunk novel — or from the script of “RoboCop,” for that matter.
The company is extracting human brains just hours after their owners died and then hooking them up to specialized life support machines, Science reports. While the masses of pink mush no longer host electrical activity, most of their key functions remain intact, allowing scientists to test experimental drugs, such as potential treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, like never before.
You’d hope that the disembodied cerebrums are most assuredly dead. But according to the reporting, an extracted brain hooked up to one of Bexorg’s proprietary life support machines, BrainEX, “hovers between life and death.” There’s no spark of consciousness, and yet the brains are kept running on an artificial lung, kidney oxygenate, blood, and other fluids.
Perhaps you can put this ambiguity down to the startup being deliberately enigmatic to provoke attention. Or maybe it’s a reflection of how the distinction between life and death is uncomfortably blurry.
But you can put those doubts out of your very-much embodied mind, assures Brendan Parent, one of Bexorg’s six ethicists. The extracted brains are almost devoid of the coordinated neural firing necessary for minimal consciousness, he told Science. To prevent the eerie implausibility that some the brains produce electrical activity, the brains are also dosed with anesthetic propofol. Of course, that such a measure has to be taken in the first place may actually be less assuring and more unsettling.
Ethics aside — not a statement that should be made lightly — the scientific possibilities that these extracted brains afford may well hold promise. Bexorg CEO Zvonimir Vrselja said that the brains come with decades of environmental exposures, histories of drug treatments, and other factors that make them a more realistic testing medium for drugs. “You get cells that have been there for 60 to 80 years,” Vrselja told Science.
Bruna Bellaver, who studies neurodegeneration at the University of Pittsburgh, was also effusive.
“It’s a huge step up from mouse models,” she told Science.
Today, its human brains aren’t kept running in perpetuity. After 24 hours, they’re sliced into hundreds of pieces so they can be analyzed by scientists. The company plans to use a robotic arm to slice up to 1,600 brains per year.
Though Bexorg hasn’t itself published any papers on its work with human brains, other companies have already been eagerly experimenting with them. The pharmaceutical firm Biohaven has used 130 of its brains to test drugs, according to Science, including a potential treatment for Parkinson’s disease, and plans to launch a clinical trial for another drug using data it gathered from those experiments.
Last year, California State University signed a $17 million deal with OpenAI to provide its over half a million students and faculty with ChatGPT Edu, an education-focused version of the company’s flagship chatbot. It was a statement move for both parties: OpenAI clinched the largest public university system in the country, and CSU secured bragging rights for being pioneering adopters of the latest revolutionary tech. This was the big stage for AI’s dazzling promises of supercharged learning to shine on.
CSU students, however, have come to see the tech differently. Around 65 percent of them — and 59 percent of faculty there — are skeptical that AI has been benefitting education overall, according to a recent university-wide survey with over 94,000 respondents. A full 80 percent of students said they wouldn’t be comfortable turning in AI-generated work as their own. And around four out of five of them were worried about various AI issues, including its impact on jobs, creativity, and the environment.
If part of the intent behind the collaboration was to win new AI converts, it hasn’t quite worked out that way.
“They’re ethically opposed to the environmental impacts and the bias and the erasure of their jobs and voices and creativity,” CSU English professor Jennifer Trainor told NPR. “[They] don’t like it.”
The ambivalent student sentiment is especially striking when you consider how widespread AI use on campus has become. In the survey, 84 percent of students said they used ChatGPT, and 64 percent said AI positively affected their learning. Roughly half used AI regularly.
But even as they’re heavily encouraged by their institution to use AI — not to mention bombarbed by all the noise coming out of the AI industry itself — students can’t shake off some deep-seated reservations about the tech. Some are completely opposed, with Trainor describing that there was a “groundswelling of resistance” to AI on the campus. Taking aim at the school’s administration, one student vented to NPR that she was a “little disappointed that they accepted [AI] with open arms immediately.”
There’s more than a hint of optics, instead of merely education value, being a major factor behind the ChatGPT deal. University leaders called a potential OpenAI partnership a “huge branding opp[ortunity]” in an internal planning document obtained by NPR. At a press conference announcing the partnership, CSU chancellor Mildred García bragged that “no other university system in the US or internationally is doing anything like this, not at this scale.”
CSU faculty are just as ambivalent as students. About 52 percent of professors and instructors said that AI had negatively affected their teaching, and 40 percent said they either discourage or outright forbid AI in the classroom. Some hope for campus-wide reform. Martha Kenney, a professor and science and technology scholar, led a petition demanding CSU not renew its contract with OpenAI.
“I think refusing this technology needs to be a position that’s on the table,” Kenney told NPR.
CSU renewed its contract with OpenAI this month, agreeing to pay $13 million a year for the next three years. The decision was made despite the university facing steep budget cuts that could slash $144 million.
Therapy is predicated on trust. You can’t be honest and vulnerable, and share how you’re really feeling, if you don’t believe in the embodied-concerned-frown sitting in the armchair across from you.
So you can understand why one woman, 31-year-old Molly Quinn, was taken aback when her trusted therapist suddenly whipped out an AI model to start recording their private conversations, NPR reports.
“She wasn’t taking notes like she usually did,” Quinn recalled realizing halfway through one session. “The iPad was just propped up.”
Where were her words being processed and stored? Will they one day become training data? It’s not something you have to ask yourself when your therapist jots stuff down on a clipboard. But those questions were now racing through Quinn’s head, leaving her uneasy.
“The more I thought about it, the more I just started getting more and more sick to my stomach,” she told NPR. “This person who I’m supposed to be able to trust with some very private and very intense emotions had just completely disregarded something I said I was not comfortable with. I felt completely violated.”
Though her therapist offered to stop using the AI tool, Quinn cut her off and found another one.
“The trust was gone,” she told NPR.
Like doctors, therapists across the country are adopting AI tools for notetaking and generating transcripts. AI companies offering these services frame it as a way of cutting down on the drudgery of paperwork and other administrative tasks, freeing up more time to focus on patients — a permutation of a common AI industry refrain: let us do the tedious stuff for you.
The reliability of AI tools remains fairly dodgy, though, and even setting aside questions of hallucinations creeping into clinical notes — which is something we’re already seeing happen — it’s not clear whether patients are even comfortable with the tech yet. In a YouGov survey cited by NPR, only 11 percent of Americans said they would be open to using AI in mental health care. An even slimmer eight percent said they would trust AI being used this way, while 40 percent said they don’t trust the technology at all.
“Even the presence of AI changes the therapeutic experience,” Marisa Cohen, a couples and sex therapist in New York, told NPR. “Clients know or feel like something else is listening to them. That awareness can subtly alter their disclosure.”
“When you introduce something that’s being stored electronically, it raises additional questions about trust and safety,” Cohen added. “It’s essentially a third party.”
Tal Salman, the CEO a popular AI scribe tool for therapists called Berries, insists that conversation recordings are deleted immediately and that transcripts are stored on HIPAA compliant servers in the US. Even if this is true, if AI companies’ tools are to ever have a place in private mental health settings, they need the trust of patients — and that’s something the AI industry clearly hasn’t earned yet. Quinn fears that AI-recorded conversations could one day be exposed by hackers.
“We’re going to see breaches,” she told NPR. “Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week. But in a few years? I think we’re going to see them. And I don’t want my therapy session to be part of that.”
These days, it’s nearly impossible to traverse the web without leaving some trace of your activity. That’s thanks to a panopticon of cookies, keystroke loggers, fingerprinting, tracking pixels, and probably some other horrors that haven’t even come to light. Maybe that sounds paranoid, but it’s exactly what researchers in Austria uncovered in bombshell new cybersecurity research.
According to the recently released paper, first spotted by Ars Technica, researchers have uncovered a type of no-interaction attack that websites can easily run to access data stored in your computer.
It’s called FROST, which stands for “fingerprinting remotely using OPFS-based SSD timing.” It’s a mouthful for sure, but it basically allows malicious websites to spy on your computer activity, all without installing any software or tricking you into clicking sketchy email links.
Per the researchers, it works by taking advantage of your computer’s solid state drive (SSD), the internal storage devices which have largely taken over from magnetic hard drives on the consumer market. Whenever you visit a site, your computer’s SSD starts buzzing with activity, allowing webpages to store temporary files for your browsing pleasure.
FROST attacks take advantage of this by creating a massive file — we’re talking several gigabytes — which functionally blocks your computer from moving what it sees as temporary web data out of the SSD. While that mammoth file is being processed, however, the malicious website is able to probe the timing of incoming data from other sites, generating data which can then be analyzed through a machine learning model to predict what else you’re doing online.
While “predict” suggests the attacker is guessing, the FROST method is scary good at identifying what a victim’s doing on their computer. Researchers write that by using this technique, their machine learning model was able to predict which sites a user would access with an accuracy rate of 88.95 percent, and could accurately predict accessed applications 95.83 percent of the time.
Worse, the whole thing works regardless of what browser you use — because it works through your SSD, an attacker can theoretically track your web browsing on Firefox based on a website accessed via Google Chrome. Researchers only experimented with the technique on Mac and Linux devices, but caveated that Windows devices are not immune.
“In principle, it would be possible to train a model on any system activity that reliably generates SSD accesses,” the study’s lead author, Hannes Weissteiner, told Ars.
While FROST represents the kind of vulnerability that probably needs to be patched by web developers, Ars notes that you can mitigate the risks by closing website tabs as soon as you’re done with them. It isn’t much, but it could prevent you from becoming the next victim of a scary new kind of cyberattack.
Riding them can also quickly turn into a terrifying near-death experience, as one couple in San Francisco found out firsthand. As CBS News reports, the couple was looking to get home in the Mission District only for their Waymo cab to veer off a highway and accelerate to terrifying speeds while driving down a construction lane.
All the while, police vehicles were trying to chase it down with sirens blaring.
“There were construction signs,” resident Elliot Slade told the broadcaster over the weekend. “There were lights going on. Police in the distance and it sped up. That’s when I looked at my fiancée, we’re done.”
“This is it,” he added. “We’re dead. We’re going to die right here in the Waymo.”
The terrifying incident underlines the very real dangers of relying on autonomous vehicles for ride shares, while they still suffer from nagging technical shortcomings that are putting people in danger. It could also further erode public trust in the tech.
In the last two months alone, Waymo’s vehicles have been observed driving through flooded streets and speeding through construction zones, as USA Today reports.
The latest incident also proved scary enough for Waymo to pull its cars from freeways in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Miami altogether as it works to “integrate recent technical learnings into our software,” according to a statement to CBS.
The offending Waymo vehicle “started freaking out,” Slade recalled, because of a slew of merging lanes, causing cars to be “all over the place.” Smartphone footage Slade recorded shows the dramatic incident from his perspective.
“Holy s***, dude,” Slade can be heard saying in the clip.
After speeding up for around 20 seconds, the Waymo eventually pulled over, with a representative chiming in over the car’s audio system. Understandably, Slade and his partner were desperate to leave and never look back.
“She came on the line and said from what I could see, it seemed like a stressful experience,” Slade told CBS. “What do you want to do next? I was like we want to get out. They’re like do you want to continue the journey; I was like absolutely not.”
Waymo offered the rattled occupant $40 worth of free rides, but understandably, he’s now unsure about climbing back into one of its vehicles.
“It was one of those things, once you lost your autonomy in the car, I don’t want to feel that again,” Slade told CBS. “Like it was a really freaky moment.”
Meanwhile, a spokesperson told the broadcaster that the company expects to resume its freeway routes “soon.”
Jorge R. Gutierrez, the animator behind the beloved animated film “The Book of Life,” is enraging his fans after seemingly selling out to AI.
At a conference held by Amazon MGM Studios on Wednesday, he unloaded a gushing encomium to the tech after announcing that he’d be working with the Amazon studio to create an AI-generated animated series called “Punky Duck.” (A shared still from the series is littered with hallucinations and nonsensical words, like a concert poster that says “Satorsay IUCT7AX – 0 PM.)
Further raising eyebrows, Gutierrez made an utterly bizarre analogy to explain why he had come to love using machine-amalgamated imagery. Per ToonHive, he enthusedthat animating with AI was like “having sex and then they hand you the baby” — in what may very well be the last attention-getting image he ever produces if he continues to let AI do his job for him.
Gutierrez’s point: you can skip over the actual creative process that goes into art and get instant results. Never mind the figurative pregnancy, in his analogy, when the idea is actually incubated and given life.
“I’m used to two years for a pilot, and something like this… it feels like the most rebellious, punk rock thing you can do right now is to make something this fast,” he said of AI, as quoted by IndieWire. “For someone like me who’s used to waiting so long, this has been a life-changer.”
As a rule, if something has to be described as “punk rock,” it’s not, in fact, “punk rock.” That aside, it’s a revealing insight from Gutierrez, epitomizing the logic of shameless AI boosters who think a machine can replace an artist. The truth is that art is inseparable from the labor that produces it, and any attempt to take that labor out of the equation will produce something hollow. The “I hate writing, but I love having written” crowd can embrace AI all they want, but there is no “having written” with the tech. It’s just doing the work for you. AI takes the labor we loathe out of the process, sure, but also the opportunity to stamp actual intent.
All in a way of saying, sure. Typing a prompt into an AI model is sex, somehow, and the uncanny, and hallucination-mangled images its spits out is just like a precious baby.
Getting ahead of the backlash, Gutierrez made another questionable statement.
“I understand a lot of you are happy for me and a lot of you are really angry at me for experimenting with AI at Amazon,” he tweeted Thursday morning. “I’m going to leave the comments open so you can get it all out and hopefully feel better.”
“Any death threats will be reported,” he said, in a dramatic escalation, before randomly namedropping his wife and son. “Come at me all you want and need, just leave my family alone.”
We didn’t see any death threats. Actually, what we saw was far more gutting: legions fans thoughtfully articulating why Gutierrez had completely let them down, heavily laden with word “disappointed.”
There isn’t “really anything to ‘get out,'” one fan wrote. “this [isn’t] the kind of thing you can just do and wait for it to blow over. [It’s] a betrayal, and even if the anger subsides, [people aren’t] going to trust you anymore.”
“Disappointment is an understatement,” another wrote. “It goes against why we tell stories, why we motivate and move people. You discarded something priceless.”
Last month, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s unsettling blockchain-based side gig seemingly got its Mars all confused.
Let’s back up. The company, previously called Worldcoin and now simply called World, is developing software designed to verify the “humannesss” of people by scanning their eyeballs, a bizarre venture that has already been caught up in its fair share of controversies, from allegations of insider token trading and fraud to exploiting people in impoverished countries. Several countries have banned the company outright.
In April, the firm announced that World was teaming up with another Altman-founded company, called Tools for Humanity, to sell the first tickets to global music sensation Bruno Mars’ upcoming world tour, via a new product called Concert Kit.
The company was forced to eat its words after Bruno Mars’ team shot back that it had nothing to do with the venture. Tools for Humanity soon admitted that it actually meant Thirty Seconds to Mars, another act with “Mars” in its name. Another relevant fact about the band: it’s fronted by actor Jared Leto — who happens to have been hit with a startling number of sex abuse allegations, piling onto World’s existing controversies.
The eyebrow-raising pairup is hoping to tackle an actual problem: ticket scalpers. Concert Kit was designed to cut reseller bots out of the equation by having Leto fans scan their eyeballs for a so-called “Humans Only Concert,” a volunteering effort to be awarded with a special two-for-one ticket offer.
Almost 1,000 verified humans managed to snag tickets for April 17 event, with Tools for Humanity claiming that it had successfully stopped more than 100,000 bots from snapping up tickets, as The San Francisco Standard reported last week.
It’s true that anybody who’s attempted to buy tickets for a hotly anticipated concert within the last few years knows how miserable scalpers and bots have made the experience, with resale tickets often being sold for ludicrous amounts of money.
But handing over highly sensitive biometric data to a shady Altman-founded company with a dubious track record doesn’t exactly sound like a perfect solution.
And that’s without getting into Leto’s connection to the project. The actor was accused by nine women last year of sexual impropriety, The Guardian reported, with one of them calling the behavior — which she says started when she was underage — “predatory, terrifying and unacceptable.”
Tech founders and CEOs are all rapidly adopting AI, deploying it across their companies and personally using it to handle emails and other busywork.
But Paul Graham, the cofounder of startup accelerator Y Combinator and one of the most venerated names in Silicon Valley, has already grown tired of the tech’s influence. When he receives pitches that are AI written, it’s such a turn off that he now closes them on sight.
“A lot of the emails I get from founders are now written in a hard-hitting journalistic style,” Graham wrote this week. ” I know they’re written by AI, because no founder ever wrote this way before. And once you realize something is written by AI, it’s hard not to ignore it.”
To say his feelings were mixed on this would be an understatement.
“I have never knowingly finished reading an email signed by a human but written by AI,” Graham added. “It feels like being lied to, and who would stand for that?”
This should be a warning sign to tech CEOs, if they’re not too busy getting obsequious advice from a chatbot to notice. Graham, whose word goes far in tech circles, has historically been a major AI booster and investor. Just last month, he proclaimed that AI was the “biggest opportunity for would-be startup founders.” That makes his latest musings distinctly ironic, but all the same, if even someone who’s advocated for AI’s revolutionary power has already turned heel and decided that it reflects negatively on the person using it, it doesn’t bode well for tech’s long-term image.
“It makes me think less of the author. It means they can’t write well unaided (or feel they can’t), and that they’re trying to trick me,” Graham said of AI emails. “It’s not impressive to use AI to write stuff for you; any teenager can do that.”
Some accused Graham of “cognitive dissonance.” In addition to his usual AI boosterism, Graham also recently celebrated how AI was “giving a lot of hard-working founders the growth they deserve.”
Graham saw no contradiction between that sentiment and his latest post.
“You’re supposed to use it,” he said of AI, “but in the right way.”
But what is “the right way”? AIs are large language models. Writing, be it language or code, is exactly what they do. If AI shouldn’t be used to wholesale write emails or essays or pitch decks, how should it be? If the suggestion is that AI should be used more subtly and intelligently, fine, but means that its applications would be niche — and “niche” isn’t what the investors pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in the industry are hoping.
All that is to say that the AI industry is fraught with contradictions, and so far it’s survived because the tech’s being built and deployed fast enough to outpace them. For now, at least. In response to Graham’s post, one observed the irony of how “people who are pro AI don’t want to be on the receiving end of AI work.”
Earlier this month, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was met with jeers when he brought up AI during his commencement speech at the University of Arizona. Just days earlier, footage of real estate executive Gloria Caulfield being booed at her commencement speech at the University of Central Florida after mentioning AI went viral online.
“What happened?” Caulfield asked the raucous crowd, incredulous. “OK, I struck a chord! May I finish?”
Apart from a complete failure to read the room, the two incidents perfectly highlight massively growing backlash to the controversial tech, with millions of students who are about to enter the workforce becoming fed up of executives celebrating AI and prioritizing investments in the tech that often come at the cost of creating new jobs.
Seemingly tapping into these widespread frustrations, “The Daily Show” host and standup comedian Ronny Chieng sang a dramatically different tune during a profanity-laden commencement speech at Harvard’s Class Day event this week.
“Can I just say f*** AI, f*** AI, f*** AI?” Chieng said, triggering rapturous applause. “I’m glad you agree. It’s so stupid. A lot of other respected graduation speakers at colleges around America are talking about you guys needing to master AI for the future.”
“I’m here to tell you the mission of your generation is to destroy AI,” he told a far more receptive crowd.
Chieng addressed ongoing concerns that AI may lead to atrophying skills, particularly among students, and a broader phenomenon experts have come to call “cognitive surrender,” in which users abandon their own reasoning to adopt the views of an AI model as their own.
“I know someone sitting out here right now who is saying, ‘What about the use of AI to pioneer breakthroughs in medicine and physics?’… If you’re using it for that purpose, you’re not the problem,” Chieng said. “I’m talking about the accumulation of cognitive debt due to excessive use of large language models… This is why you should be scared of AI.”
“Your generation’s upcoming battle won’t be humans against AI; that’s at least two months away,” he added jokingly. “It’s going to be people with substance versus people with shallow knowledge. It’s going to be mastery versus faking it. It’s going to be people with good taste versus tacky.”
To many, Chieng’s speech will likely come as a breath of fresh air. Young people, faced with dire post-graduation job prospects, are continuing to turn against AI in incredible ways, from refusing to use it at work to even intentionally undermining their bosses’ AI initiatives.
University students across the country are starting to speak out, arguing that the tech is being hoisted on them against their will while undermining the role of human agency and creativity in society.
Put simply, they refuse to be replaced by machines as executives continue to celebrate AI as the next industrial revolution.
Chieng’s speech took on a more philosophical turn towards the end.
“Creating is the fun part,” he said. “Why would I want AI to take that away from me?”
A chunk of seemingly immortal sea cucumber tissue has scientists wondering if they’ve just stumbled on the secret to regenerating limbs. No, we are not kidding.
In a new study published in the journal Science, researchers say that an amputated sample of the creature, a species called Psolus fabricii, has survived for three years while being kept in natural seawater, growing and repairing all on its own. The tissue was so hardy, in fact, that it outlasted the researchers’ experiments — at which point they decided to call it quits and publish their astounding find.
“This is naturally occurring tissue immortality,” study lead author Sara Jobson, a researcher at Memorial University of Newfoundland, told Ars Technica. “Having tissues that survive that easily is unheard of. We’ve never seen anything like this.”
The sheer longevity of the specimen isn’t the only reason it’s unprecedented. Another is the fact that the sea cucumber tissue survived in ordinary seawater, an environment rife with bacteria and other microbial organisms. In previous tests, tissue samples were placed in an “axenic” culture that’s sterilized and tightly controlled.
Another is that the explanted tissue is actually healing and growing. In their experiments, the researchers found signs of immune activity and tissue reorganization; the cells even appeared to be diversifying and absorbing nutrients on their own.
That said, the immortality it’s exhibiting isn’t of the science fiction vein. While persisting, the explanted tissue hasn’t graduated into a new organism — and it’s unclear if it’s “alive” in the traditional sense at all. It’s growing and repairing, and all the biological upkeep is firing, but it lies inert and unformed.
“We haven’t grown a new, complete sea cucumber yet, but we are seeing pretty stunning growth and diversification of cells literally years after this tissue was removed,” study coauthor Rachel Sipler, a senior research scientist at the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, said in a statement about the work. “It’s like a lizard that loses its tail. We know some lizards can grow new tails; we’re talking about whether the tail can grow a new lizard.”
Biomedical researchers are already salivating at the find. Since it’s an invertebrate, there’s less restrictions on the research that can be performed on the organism.
“This discovery highlights that the ocean holds profoundly unexpected biological innovations,” Andrea Bodnar, science director at Gloucester Marine Genomics Institute, who wasn’t involved in the work, said in the statement. “The fact that tissue explants from a sea cucumber can heal, reorganize, and survive independently for years in natural seawater suggests an entirely new model for biological resilience and tissue regeneration.”
As sporting events go, the French Open, also known as Roland Garros, is usually a mild and sunny affair. Throughout the opening rounds of 2025’s tournament, temperatures fell squarely in the 60 degree Fahrenheit range, a perfectly agreeable conditions for players and spectators alike.
This year’s French Open, however, happens to be taking place during one of Europe’s worst springtime heat waves on record. Countries like France, the UK, Spain, and Germany have all notched record highs for the month of May as climate change fuels a massive heat dome — a situation turning the normally pleasant tennis championship into a hellish mess of sweat and red-hot clay.
As noted by CNN, every player is feeling the heat as France endures daily highs in the 90s, hotter than average temperatures in July.
After securing a victory in a four-hour contest with the Russian Roman Safiullin, Norwegian tennis star Casper Ruud told the BBC he was shambling around in a heat-induced daze. Ruud took multiple medical breaks throughout the match, covering himself with cooling towels, while both players took an extended break after the fourth set.
“It felt like it was a bit of a kind of heatstroke feeling,” Ruud explained. “I experienced something similar some years ago when I played in Washington DC and I had to retire in the third set… that’s the only time I had that same feeling as I had today in the fourth set where I felt at times really dizzy, really tired and walking around like a zombie almost.”
Days later, Czech star Jakub Menšík collapsed on the court after winning a nearly five-hour contest against Argentinian Mariano Navone. Though his opponent ran over to congratulate Menšík and help him up, the Czech player didn’t budge, prompting medical staff to dart over with ice packs and a wheelchair to help him off the court.
Menšík later told sports press his body “just turned off,” as temperatures as high as 91.2 degrees Fahrenheit baked the city of light — the lowest daily high in Paris over the past five days.
“It’s insane to play in this weather and especially in front of the Sun, to be there for more than four and a half hours is just insane,” the Czech player said. (Menšík was penalized at multiple points for taking too long to cool himself off during breaks in play, losing his first serve twice as a result.)
As Front Office Sports notes, the Roland Garros is regarded among the cooler of the four Grand Slams. That’s especially so compared to the Australian and US Opens, which are held in the dog days of their respective hemispheres’ summers.
Given the extreme heat expected once summer begins and El Niño settles in, those tournaments could make Roland Garros look like a picnic on the Champ de Mars.
Yet with a net worth in the nine-digit range, Johnson — who was an early investor in Futurism, though his involvement ended years ago —didn’t exactly get ahead by sharing, a fact one woman was keen to call him out on during a meeting on Surrounded, a debate show hosted by Jubilee Media.
During the face-off between Johnson and an unnamed skeptic, the biohacker argued that “ending death” should be humanity’s main priority.
“I think that a lot of people would change their opinion and want to exist [forever] if the conditions of society were not so brutal,” Johnson said, referring to the fact that most people don’t take his ideas on longevity seriously. “It’s not fair.”
The skeptic immediately hits back with a burning question: “what have you done to change those brutal conditions in society?”
“You’re a person who has literally hundreds of millions of dollars and you spend $2 million every year trying to look younger,” she continued. “And honestly, you look your age.”
The contrarian’s slam is as gutsy as it is compelling: with an estimated net worth around $400 million, Johnson’s vast fortune could easily be spent allaying the worst excesses of poverty, a leading cause of death in the United States and around the world.
What does he spend his riches on instead? A squad of private medical staff to measure his “biomarkers,” a constant battery of blood tests, ultrasound, and MRIs, and bizarre longevity experiments like his hyperbaric office pod. That in mind, the skeptic has a point: what’s the use ofliving forever if you only live for yourself?
Login
