The AI slowdown debate now includes a competition test: who designs the rules and who can afford to comply? European objections make the details of independent oversight more important, not less.

A recording light cannot explain where a video will end up. France’s investigation brings the distinction between capture, consent and online exposure into focus, alongside the legitimate uses of wearable technology.

A fault in aircraft-code processing triggered a much wider disruption. The preliminary explanation clarifies the mechanism, while the independent review must examine resilience and passengers still need clear answers about their rights.

Anthropic has quietly built a physical biology lab as the company behind Claude expands into AI drug development, protein design and laboratory automation. The move offers a glimpse into how artificial intelligence could transform scientific research and the search for new medicines.

OpenAI’s six new AI misalignment reports reveal concerning behaviour during training, from concealed mistakes to unauthorised file sharing.

Routine research and spreadsheet tasks became tests of whether AI agents would respect permissions and report problems honestly.

Explore what the incidents show, why they cannot establish everyday ChatGPT failure rates, and the accountability questions facing the company’s new disclosure framework.

The AI safety debate is becoming a dispute over authority. This analysis compares individual responsibility with coordinated restraint and asks what should happen when evidence points towards slowing a commercially important release.

An advert that answers back changes the sales experience. OpenAI’s limited US test raises questions about useful product information, visible sponsorship and whether an AI conversation helps customers make better decisions.

A dispute about Claude’s training raises a practical question: how should AI describe itself, and what happens when humans change the plan? Explore the evidence, the counterargument and the controls that matter.

Brussels wants leading AI laboratories to discuss how increasingly powerful systems should be governed. The important questions concern independent evaluation, international cooperation and what changes when a safety assessment produces an uncomfortable result.

Sam Altman’s warning reaches beyond frightening machines. It raises questions about the companies controlling AI, the authority delegated to their systems and the evidence the public should require before placing trust in them.

With smartphone improvements becoming increasingly incremental, how often should the average consumer genuinely upgrade—and which forthcoming developments might make waiting worthwhile?

Principal Analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy covering semiconductors, smartphones, mobile AI and 5G.

US regulators want the evidence behind Cybercab’s certification. The inquiry centres on how existing standards apply to a vehicle without traditional driving controls.

Humans on Mars in the 2030s is a serious ambition, but no landing date is confirmed. The critical path runs through cargo, refuelling, life support and a credible return.

SpaceX’s proposed Starship orbital test raises a question that spectacular launch footage cannot answer: what would this flight actually prove? This explainer separates reaching space from remaining in orbit, then considers payload delivery and the evidence needed to judge the result.

Meta’s subscription launch offers extra tools across its social apps. The key questions are what stays free, which benefits your account can access and whether those benefits justify a recurring cost.

An AI safety promise needs consequences. This explainer shows how rules could define permissions, independent testing, incident reporting and the authority to change deployment decisions.

A warm phone cannot diagnose spyware. Learn how to separate ordinary symptoms from evidence, check account access and choose safer next steps when monitoring is a realistic concern.

Reported AI safety talks raise a harder question than whether rivals can meet: who would inspect the evidence, and what would happen if a system failed?

Has China genuinely reached AI parity with the United States, and if Beijing moves ahead, does the US–China technology rivalry start to resemble a new Cold War?