Intelligence

The survey, conducted by two economists, found that students are using AI to a much greater extent than U.S. adults, and they’re doing it responsibly. What the data reveals is a distinction between two types of AI use: augmentation and automation. Augmentation refers to uses that enhance learning, while automation refers to uses that produce work with minimal effort. The study found that students are far more likely to use AI for augmentation purposes.

In a world where personalised education remains an elusive ideal, imagine a hyper-personalised tutor with an unlimited budget, capable of maximising every learner’s productivity and skills development. This past summer, I decided to preview this futuristic concept through a truly ridiculous and self-absorbed experiment. Using an off-the-shelf ChatGPT tool, I created an AI tutor agent programmed to impersonate me—an Oxford lecturer on media and AI—and teach me a master’s course based entirely on my own work. The results were startling. The agent not only mimicked my approach but enhanced it, building a well-structured and intellectually challenging course I had never conceived. This self-taught, self-absorbed exercise offered me a glimpse into a new era of education, one that is both profoundly personal and deeply paradoxical.

The analogy is common: “Generative AI is just a tool, like a calculator.” Even prominent figures in the tech world have used it to downplay the significance and potential controversies of the new technology. The argument suggests that just as the calculator simplified arithmetic, AI will simply simplify language-based tasks, a harmless and useful utility. However, this comparison is deeply misleading. It ignores five critical distinctions that reveal generative AI is not a neutral tool but a complex, ethically fraught technology with profound implications for society.

In a move that highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of artificial intelligence, the United States government has declared that AI companies must ensure their systems are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias” to do business with the White House. This directive, an executive order on “preventing woke AI,” presents a profound contradiction: it demands an absence of bias while simultaneously dictating a specific ideological framework. This very paradox underscores the central truth that AI free from ideology is a fantasy. From political viewpoints to ingrained social stereotypes, AI models are not neutral. They are a reflection of their human creators, trained on a world of data that is, and always has been, distorted by human perspective.

In the wake of a global technology boom fueled by demand for artificial intelligence, a new and unsettling environmental concern is emerging. Data centers, the vast, humming warehouses of the digital world, are consuming staggering amounts of a resource more precious than data: water. These facilities use water directly for cooling, and even more indirectly for the electricity that powers them. According to a 2024 report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S. data centers consumed an estimated 17 billion gallons of water directly in 2023, with projections that this figure could more than double by 2028. But despite this monumental consumption, there is a distinct lack of transparency from the companies building them, obscuring the true environmental impact from public view and hindering efforts to manage these valuable resources.

In a rapid-fire series of updates, the world’s leading generative AI companies are rolling out chatbots with a new and unsettling feature: personality. xAI introduced Grok’s porn-enabled girlfriend Ani, while OpenAI replaced its “sycophantic” GPT-4o with a more reserved GPT-5, complete with four distinct personas. While these companies maintain that they are building artificial intelligence for the “benefit of all humanity,” these design choices suggest a different and more problematic goal. As researchers and experts in AI policy, we argue that what is being sold as a tool for discovery is increasingly resembling science fiction gone awry, designed not to assist us but to foster para-social, non-reciprocal bonds that are deceptive and potentially dangerous.

In a world where chronic loneliness is a recognized public health crisis, the explosive popularity of AI chatbots and ‘companions’ is perhaps unsurprising. Within days of its launch, Elon Musk’s xAI chatbot app Grok became Japan’s most downloaded app, propelled by the allure of its lifelike, responsive digital avatars like the flirtatious Ani. These always-available companions offer an immersive experience that can feel deeply personal, providing a sense of connection to millions. However, despite their widespread adoption, it is becoming increasingly clear that these sophisticated chatbots, developed without expert mental health consultation, pose a number of significant psychological risks, particularly to vulnerable users, including minors and those with pre-existing mental health conditions.

In a remarkably short period, the landscape of medicine in Australia has been reshaped by the rapid rise of medicinal cannabis. Since access pathways were expanded in 2016, a staggering 700,000 prescription approvals have been issued, marking a dramatic increase in its use across the country. Yet, this prescribing boom has occurred largely outside the standard regulatory framework, with the vast majority of medicinal cannabis products not registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. This has created a paradoxical situation where many patients are reporting benefits, while professional bodies and regulators are raising concerns that prescribing is “outpacing the evidence.” The three most common conditions for which it is prescribed are chronic pain, anxiety, and sleep disorders. But the question remains: does the evidence truly support this widespread use?

In a troubling turn of events for beekeepers in the north-east of England, the supply of what is typically a premium and high-volume honey has come to a grinding halt. A worrying surge in the population of the heather beetle, a pest known for its insatiable appetite for the heather plant, has been identified as the culprit. This small insect has devastated the moorland habitat, stripping the plants of their flowers and, in the process, eliminating the crucial nectar source for bees. One producer, the Northumberland Honey Company, reports that its usual annual output of five to ten tonnes of heather honey has plummeted to zero. This “worrying hit” not only poses a significant financial challenge for beekeepers but also highlights a larger ecological vulnerability, as the country’s precious moorland habitats face a myriad of threats exacerbated by a warming climate.

In a groundbreaking achievement that could reshape the future of agriculture and conservation, a team of scientists has engineered a revolutionary honeybee “superfood” designed to fortify colonies against a host of modern threats, from climate change to habitat loss. This innovative nutritional supplement, the result of a 15-year research effort led by Professor Geraldine Wright at the University of Oxford, provides honeybees with the vital nutrients previously missing from supplementary food. During initial trials, the results were astonishing, with colonies that consumed the new food producing up to 15 times more baby bees that successfully grew to adulthood. This technological breakthrough, hailed as a monumental accomplishment, promises to offer a lifeline to a species vital to global food production and a cornerstone of our planet’s delicate ecosystems, providing a sustainable solution to a crisis that has left beekeepers reeling.