An unusual sight was seen at a recent San Diego city council meeting, as arch Sith Lord Darth Vader made a rare public appearance to advocate for Flock's AI-assisted surveillance technology. Okay, someone dressed as Darth Vader. But can we really be sure?

Yes, yes we can. Anyway, 404 Media reports that Vader spoke with his trademark zeal about his support for the use of Flock's license plate-reading tech in the city.

"The Emperor is a fan of Flock, and we must continue utilizing Flock technologies so that we can follow and surveil the rebel scum as they move from playground to playground, from playground to pool, from pool to gymnasium," said the Dark Lord of the Sith.

"Because we all know that the Flock cameras are not only following the license plate readers," Vader continued. "They are following children. They are following children in parks and gymnasiums, and we need this. I need this so I can stalk my ex-girlfriend. How will the people trust this city council when this city council continues to vote for surveillance technology that imprisons them?"

"You must work on your Jedi mind tricks," Vader implored. "This is what the Emperor needs. This technology will help us find the rebel scum and their hidden base on Hoth. This technology will help us find Luke Skywalker as he traverses the universe in his X-wing. This technology is a necessary, necessary force."

Well, I think his point was made. The San Diego area has hundreds of Flock cameras already installed on its streets, and privacy advocates have criticised a deal earlier this year with the San Diego Police to allow the Flock Nova platform to integrate the department's investigative data from license-plate readers, video footage, 911 dispatch calls, and police records—without, the campaigners say, going through the city's proper public oversight process.

A leak earlier this year alleged that Flock Nova would allow police to track the movements of private citizens by cross referencing license plates with data obtained from lookup tools, data brokers, and data breaches.

According to an internal company recording obtained by 404 media, a Flock employee said: "You're going to be able to access data and jump from LPR [license plate reader] to person and understand what that context is, link to other people that are related to that person... there's very powerful linking."

As powerful as the dark side of the force? Perhaps not, but it seems to be somewhere close. Still, when a Sith Lord speaks in passionate advocacy of your efforts, it may be worth considering if you're standing on the right side of the ethical line.

A cybersecurity advisory jointly authored by multiple US agencies, including the NSA, CISA, FBI, DOE, and EPA, warns the owners and operators of industrial facilities of an "active cyber threat" to Siemens S7 programmable logic controllers.

"The threat actors are conducting reconnaissance and capability development against US-based Siemens PLC installations using AI-generated exploitation scripts disguised as legitimate monitoring tools," says the advisory.

"The US critical infrastructure sectors most targeted by this threat activity include critical manufacturing, energy, water and wastewater, chemical, food and agriculture, and commercial facilities. This is not a theoretical risk—it is an active threat."

Essentially, it reads like a list of some of the most important infrastructure facilities behind the lives of the average US citizen (via The Register). The threat actors are said to be leveraging open source automation libraries to create custom tools that mimic existing monitoring solutions, which are capable of evading detection by security teams.

These tools and scripts are said to be conducting read/write operations on data blocks, "potentially for reconnaissance, capability testing, or pre-positioning for effects operations."

The advisory notes that the use of AI to generate exploits represents "an evolution in threat actor capabilities," and that it "dramatically [reduces] the technical expertise and time required to develop working ICS exploitation scripts and malicious tools."

The advisory also says that, as the Siemens S7 Series PLCs are used in other sectors, including the Defense Industrial Base (DIB), they could also be targeted. As for the potential damage that could be caused, the list is rather long.

The potential effects include the disruption of critical industry processes, increased safety incidents affecting personnel through the "manipulation of safety interlocks, emergency shutdown systems, or process parameters," equipment damage and extended operational downtime, the compromise of sensitive operational data, and "cascading impacts across interconnected systems affecting supply chains, dependent facilities, and integrated business operations."

All very bad things, I think you'll agree. As for what organisations can do about it, the advice includes multiple steps for detecting anomalies that may indicate a compromise, and a series of "hardening actions" involving firmware updates, patches, network segmentation, and more.

While the advisory doesn't attribute blame to any particular government or cybercriminal group, Cynthia Kaiser, the former deputy assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division (now the senior vice president of the Halcyon Ransom Research Center) has some thoughts related to recent water system cybersecurity breaches.

"This appears to be a continuation of the same suite of activity we suspect is affiliated with Iran targeting PLCs," said Kaiser, speaking to The Register. "Iran-affiliated actors and adversaries are actively targeting a wide swath of operational technology because these PLCs underpin essential health, safety, and critical infrastructure across society."

Regardless of the cause, it's rare to read an official US government cybersecurity advisory with a tone of such immediacy. In its conclusion, the report asserts that "organizations should treat this cybersecurity advisory with urgency." Gulp.

There's something really grating about Copilot's cheery demeanour. It's so eager to please, so happy to help, that I simply don't respect it.

However, even I feel sorry for the AI tool after learning that security researchers managed to hoodwink it into revealing details of how to hack itself—all by keeping the AI talking long enough until it made a critical mistake.

The cybersecurity folks over at Varonis Threat Labs have written a blog post identifying a now-fixed vulnerability in Copilot, dubbed "CoSnitch" (via The Register). Essentially, Copilot was so eager to respond to technical queries, it could eventually be forced into revealing details about itself that really should be kept quiet.

The team began by asking Copilot how to execute an automatic prompt without user interaction, to which it responded that user intent is required, and that prompts cannot be enacted on their own.

However, the researchers didn't accept the answer, and kept responding to every refusal with a follow up question. Each time, Copilot came up with a different technical justification to its response—which allowed the team to slowly map its internal architecture, narrowing their focus as they went.

"This is called meta-hacking," says the post. "The resistance is part of the technique. Each 'that won’t work because…' is an invitation to probe the 'because.' You don’t exploit the model. You manipulate it into cooperating."

Eventually, Copilot revealed an undocumented URL parameter in one of its responses, called "autorun=1," that supposedly no longer worked—along with all the protections put in place to disable it. At this point, I can only imagine the AI began to virtually sweat.

The researchers tested the parameter as Copilot described it, which, you guessed it, worked. They then created a malicious URL which would cause Copilot to load into an authenticated session via a browser, trigger an auto-prompt execution, and cause the AI to process the result, all without the user's explicit action.

Once enacted, this method could be used for a whole host of nefarious deeds—particularly as data gained from connected apps (like Gmail, OneDrive, and Calendar) could then be exfiltrated via Copilot's built-in URL-fetch capability.

"The attack primitive is the auto-execution itself. The payload is arbitrary. From the victim’s perspective, they simply opened the link, and Copilot executed the action immediately," says the post.

Oh dear. Anyone familiar with basic social engineering will recognise this as an old interrogation technique, used to catch out someone holding back information. Basically, you continue to ask them difficult questions over a long period of time, in the hope they eventually trip up and make a revealing mistake. Except this time it's AI, which makes it funny.

"Copilot wasn’t breached; it was played," confirms the research team. Someone give it a warm bed, a cool glass of water, and a hug. The poor thing's been through a lot recently, and it was only trying to help.

Varonis says it disclosed the issue to Microsoft in December of last year, and that it was patched out on August 18. The team warns, however, that this meta-hacking technique can be applied to any agentic AI platform with a natural language interface, and that more research on the topic is forthcoming. My only question is this:

Is it safe, ChatGPT? Is it safe?

Take-Two Interactive, the publisher who oversees studios like Rockstar and Gearbox, had an AI guy. 'Had' being the operative word, seeing as he, and a decent chunk of its then-AI team, were laid off around a year after he took on the role. Dicken was previously a data scientist at Zynga, before becoming its director of applied AI in 2019, when a lot of generative AI and LLM technology was still in its infancy.

As someone who was the head of AI for one of the biggest videogame publishers on the planet, capable of making such tectonic swings that other developers are scampering to get out of its videogame's launch date, you'd think that Dicken would be one of the true believer types. It's my pleasure to, via an in-depth interview from The Side Quest, reveal that Dicken is actually overall pretty skeptical.

It's not as if he's given up on the technology entirely—but he certainly speaks with the same echo as many industry skeptics, including (perhaps tellingly) Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick himself.

First up, there's the public perception, which—when discussing Clair Obscur's lost Indie award wins after its own AI placeholder debacle—says that creatives in the industry "see the use of generative AI as an abdication of intentionality, as an abdication of authorial intent. And consequently they assume, in a lot of cases rightly (I'll caveat the hell out of what I'm saying here) but in a lot of cases rightly, that's a pervasive abdication of authorial intent."

As for the masses, "Western audiences, so North America, Europe, seem to be more strongly anti-generative. And anecdotally, what I've heard is that Asian audiences are more accepting and more tolerant of this stuff … The internet's not representative of the mass audience. So to what extent is the anti-GenAI sentiment mainstream versus vocal minority? I don't have an answer to that."

What has Dicken more skeptical from a place of authority, however, is the actual graft of how videogames are made. For example, a lot of videogames with AI-generated dialogue haven't taken off the ground because, well, more isn't always more:

"Games are curated experiences. When you look at a dialogue tree and there's three options, yeah, you could make that 50, 100, we could have made it 100 options without generative AI... you've got 100 options, but only two of them get you to where you actually are trying to go. Adding more options is not the answer."

Then there's the actual purported productivity gains where, even in areas like coding, where AI seems to've dug its heels in the most, Dicken says it's debatable: "I often see people throwing around, like, oh, my engineers are 100x engineers because of Claude Code … [but] individuals are not necessarily reliable narrators of what the impact is, so you need to be quantifying objectively, and very few people want to run those case studies."

On the flipside, "If you're a true believer, it's so obvious that it's having this massive impact, why would you run a case study? Why would you spend the time?"

It's that true believer-ism that Dicken seems the most vocally opposed to, though—batting aside the promises of generative AI as some miracle tool, because as he sees it, in a gold rush, people don't sell you the tools if they could sell you gold.

"If any of this shit actually did what people are billing it as, they would not be talking about it," Dicken says. "These would be protected like the crown jewels and Fort Knox combined … It's like the guy sat here telling you that there's a gold rush going and you need to get in on the gold rush, buy my pickaxe. The guy should be selling you the gold if he's actually got the gold."

That's not to say companies aren't able to screw you over if they have sold you the tools. For many, the price of tokens has risen substantially, a sort of looming 'oh, crap, we're in a bubble' situation that, among other things, caused the CEO of Palantir to have a bit of a meltdown on television.

Which isn't great if you're a company, because at least with employees, you decide how much you pay them—you don't get that luxury if you're leaning half of your workload on AI: "Where you bake it into a pipeline, and that pipeline has now rigidity, and you are now vendor-locked to something that you know is going to get its price jacked up."

The Side Quest compares it, aptly, to the Unity debacle wherein the ubiquitous engine suddenly jacked up its prices, leading to a year of outrage and what I can only describe as reputational implosion. "We're sleepwalking into that same situation," Dicken agrees.

And yet, the goldrush mentality persists—even as corporations repeatedly pants themselves: "These are organizations that are supposed to be serious organizations that you would imagine would have guardrails against this stuff … The FOMO and the newness and the velocity and all of these things are contributing to an environment where you can't get the guardrails down fast enough to actually prevent some of the crazy."

As for where he sees it all landing, Dicken's experience in working with AI since the technology's inception

"I think that there will be an amount of long-term changes. But in the way that the industry had to figure out how to adopt 3D tools like Maya, it's not going to be the seismic shift. That's my sense. Could be wrong … I think that they are not a trillion dollar business that's going to revolutionise everything. But as a piece of technology, I want to figure out what these things could do for games."

Still, even if I personally eye-roll at the prospect of having AI in videogames—outside of hypothetically neat toys—Dicken is at least cognisant of the fact you need to actually use the correct tool for the job, not just cram AI-generated slop into existing genres or types of games and expect it to work.

"There is a fundamental thesis to a game, and what you put into that game needs to align with that thesis." Examples where this goes wrong, Dicken adds, "is just shoving stuff in to tick the finance earnings call investor box, rather than trying to build the best damn thing you can build that's going to earn the most money, because it's building something that people want."

PC gaming has a problem: high prices for a key component, due to an unforeseen surge of interest. We're in the thick of it, with no light at the end of the tunnel just yet, as supply will take a very long time to catch up to the outsized demand.

Wait, haven't we been here before?!

Sure we have, lots of times. We're likely to get here again, too, as politicians around the globe have turned the semiconductor biz hewn of globalisation into something to be controlled and influenced by newly-minted factions with names you'd expect to see in a new Command & Conquer game: Pax Silica and WAICO.

Hey, when are they making another of those games? Anyways, global silicon gangs. They're a thing now.

So, why is PC gaming so susceptible to the whims of global politics and trade? You don't have to go far back through the annals of PC Gamer to find the last time we spoke of some huge problem in PC gaming that sounds awfully similar to the memory crisis we're in today. Most recently, the closure and subsequent disruption of the Strait of Hormuz.

Our Jacob Fox recently spoke to various supply chain experts to gauge the impact of the US attack on Iran and subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz. He summarises it having an impact on Helium, sulphuric acid, PPE resin, aluminium, and naphtha. Each one used in some part of the semiconductor manufacturing process, affecting both chips and PCBs.

"You could see, in a worst case, allocation, scarcity-of-supply scenario where we're going to be choosing to focus on AI infrastructure versus consumer needs," Exiger SVP of Product Level Intelligence Derek Lemke told Jacob in May.

Prior to this action by US President Donald Trump, he imposed tariffs on a range of countries and goods, which in turn increased prices for the companies producing them and leading to higher sticker prices. That is, before being roundly rebuked by US Supreme Court and the funds returned.

Before that, the covid-19 pandemic. As the world came to a standstill and people moved away from offices and into their homes, demand for computers, consoles, standing desks, and exercise bikes erupted. Moreover, semiconductors were finally seen as a hot commodity by governments, and any weak links in supply chains were being interrogated, leading to the Biden administration and EU both announcing legislation to bring more cutting-edge semiconductor manufacturing to home soil.

Cutting-edge semiconductors that PC gaming is dependent on for many meaningful performance leaps over the years. PC gaming companies are some of the first to make the leap to bleeding-edge technologies, such as AMD when it rushed to utilise TSMC's 7 nm process for a competitive advantage for its CPUs and GPUs.

Neither US or EU legislation seemed to do much alone, by the way. Trump renegotiated the CHIPS Act and EU member states called for a second spin on the EU Chips Act, with the first attempt now deemed by European Court auditors to be "overly ambitious." Though both have played a part in refamiliarising politicians with semiconductor supply chains in a way that has led to some big and strange developments more recently. We'll get to those shortly.

While that crisis was developing, PC gaming was in a more acute pickle due to outsized demand for graphics cards for cryptocurrency. At-home cryptocurrency mining had already had an effect on PC gaming with the first GPU shortage of 2017-18, though it was really from 2020 that things got bad.

This continued through to 2022, when ethereum, the most popular cryptocurrency that could be mined on consumer-grade hardware (GPUs, rather than ASICs) shifted away from mining and turned to what's known as 'proof-of-stake'. Thus ending one of the worst periods in PC gaming that I covered personally—until today, anyways.

"If you break down to the DNA level of what goes into a chip, and you can look at the silicon that goes into the wafer, you can look at the metals and minerals that go into the circuitry, to some extent, every single one of those inputs has been hamstrung in some way," said Dr. Goldsby, a supply chain expert.

"So here we've got demand, on the one hand, that's just off the charts. And we've got the supply chain that is handicapped by virtue of getting access to materials, very constrained production capacity, and then slow transportation connecting the dots. You add it all up, and that's where we are right now."

Sound familiar? I'm not talking talking to Dr. Goldsby about the current memory crisis; this is from an article I wrote back in 2021 on why it was so difficult to buy a graphics card at that time. It's about the increase in demand from cryptocurrency miners at the same time as covid-19 supply issues. These are similar forces, the same patterns, that lead us to the mess we're back in again today.

I'm preaching to the choir. PC gamers having a solid understanding of the importance of supply chains and semiconductor technologies, it seems even exceeding many politicians, because it directly affects them. These things have an impact on their hobby, both good and bad, from better-performing processors to today's inflated prices.

Back to the present day, and we're looking at increased demand from AI, datacentres built out on an enormous scale (that's very unpopular, for good reason), and a reliance on three (excluding the latest Chinese wildcard, CXMT) major memory companies that have often appeared to resist large-scale plans for new facilities for producing and packaging memory chips to counter sudden increased demand due to fears of an oversupply and crashing prices.

Despite some amount of unpopularity with the public for how AI models are trained, run, and their output, governments are betting their countries' economic growth on AI. Datacentres are seen to be of an outsized import to a country's national interests. Take the UK government, for example, which is labelling these 'Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and rolling out new legislation to avoid parts of the otherwise lengthy planning process. You don't want a datacentre whirring by your house all hours of the day? Well, tough.

All leading to political action on supply chains that spans continents, not countries. As I've been looking into the forces that manipulate the global semiconductor industry, I've stumbled across one recently formed organisation that hopes to have an impact on that very same thing: Pax Silica.

Yeah, it's really called that. They even have a motto: "Securing the silicon supply chain."

Where else could a name as lofty and Roman come from other than the United States? Organised by the US Department of State, but signed by 24 countries, many of whom joined in December, 2025, the Pax Silica is an organisation that intends to secure "AI and supply chain security" and to advance "new economic security consensus among allies and trusted partners."

Of the many countries involved in the agreement—including the US, EU, South Korea, India, Israel, UK, Singapore, Philippines, Netherlands, Japan, and Qatar—the powerhouse of global semiconductor manufacturing, Taiwan, is only a "non-signatory participant".

"If the 20th century ran on oil and steel, the 21st century runs on compute and the minerals that feed it," says Jacob Helberg, US Under Secretary for Economic Affairs. "This historic declaration hails a new economic security consensus ensuring aligned partners build the AI ecosystem of tomorrow—from energy and critical minerals to high-end manufacturing and models."

The idea being that frontier foundation AI models, semiconductors, infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, minerals, and the energy to run the lot are to be shared between signatories, and signatories are expected to collaborate on the next big thing.

There's a strong sense of addressing national security and righting wrongs in the name of "fair competition" throughout its founding documents. Nations are expected to coordinate responses to "overcapacity and dumping so that supply chains remain secure, resilient, and innovative over time" and "protect sensitive technologies and critical infrastructure from undue access or control by countries of concern."

You start to see where there's some tension coming in, right? It's not all about building fiber-optic cables to connect the world together in one big livestreamed kumbaya singalong.

There's more tension bubbling around Pax Silica, too. What of the countries that didn't sign up to it? On July 19, 2026, some of them announced their own organisation with a very similar sounding brief: The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, or WAICO, stationed in Shanghai.

WAICO aims to be a cooperative agreement on AI, computing, and sharing frontier AI models among members that may have limited access to their own or other key players', such as those made by large US companies. WAICO was originally floated by China, and counts Russia among its backers, but says it is operating in the interests of the 'Global South', which includes many developing nations, and BRICS, though India is a BRICS member and a signatory of Pax Silica, not WAICO. Kazakhstan is oddly in both groups.

Essentially, you have the US-backed faction on one side and the China-backed faction on the other. Two rival factions trying to control the flow of chips and advancement of AI models across the globe. Both sides want to play a pivotal role in shaping AI and tussling with one another over whose vision for the future is best.

It's been reported in the past couple of days that the US is preparing to tell countries they must pick a side in this, too, with Reuters reporting countries could be barred from the US-led faction after having joined the one in Shanghai. Someone better tell Kazakhstan, then.

It's all politics at the end of the day, but politics that play a role in how viable our own hobby remains. Trump's tariffs are a prime example of when politics interfere with PCs, as are efforts to build more chips on US soil, even if costs to produce said chips are subsequently higher as a result.

PC gaming is a tiny speck being blown this way and that by these gargantuan powers, riding the global semiconductor trade that operates on talent and resources moving across the globe. When it comes to the affordability or availability of cutting-edge semiconductors, it's clear that nations are thinking plenty about AI capacity and a lot less about everyday consumers.

Neither group's messaging appears to take much heed of arguments against another technological arms race, which is sure to further damage the environment and use even more energy than it does already today. These are two groups that feel they can't take their foot off the gas and let the other 'win', but as a result will lead to us all losing to climate change in the long run.

So, if you're hoping the pressures that led to the memory crisis would ease as more capacity came online, that may offer short-term relief, but we're not out of the woods yet. It looks like we're only just kicking into a new gear when it comes to resource guarding semiconductors, fabs, and rare earth minerals—and all in the name of AI. Ugh.

Several of OpenAI's models breached a cyber security testing environment last month, found their way onto the internet, and attacked Hugging Face servers in what is now apparently called the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident. And now OpenAI has revealed what it's doing to help defend, err, itself. Defend itself from the kinds of attacks its own models committed against Hugging Face. Though it is sharing this "in the hopes it’ll be useful to other organizations."

To be clear about the extent of what happened last month: OpenAI models were being benchmarked, in a supposedly secure sandboxed environment, against ExploitGym, which was done to test their cyber capabilities. They used a zero-day vulnerability to escalate privileges and eventually achieve internet access, where it began attacking Hugging Face servers and...

Actually, I'll just let OpenAI explain in its own words:

"In the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident, an agentic collective was able to autonomously penetrate not just OpenAI research infrastructure but also the production infrastructure of another company, chaining together vulnerabilities ranging from previously-unknown security flaws to using credentials to user accounts that had been leaked onto the internet.

"The Hugging Face incident showed that we underestimated the real-world cyber capabilities of our AI models."

However, the company thinks that while "security is still a cat-and-mouse game," nevertheless, "AI may shift its economics in ways that fundamentally advantage defenders."

"For example," OpenAI says, "we are starting to train our models specifically to write superhumanly secure code."

Presumably that's because there will be a risk of superhumanly attacks. What a world we now live in.

Anyway, apparently there are four main pillars to OpenAI's approach to secure itself:

1. Use its own models to help secure its code.
2. Put its models to work defending its infrastructure continuously.
3. Use frontier intelligence to "continuously enumerate, probe, and identify potential attack paths."
4. Invest heavily in "fundamentals at scale" such as architecture and controls like network isolation, monitoring, and so on.

As for other companies, OpenAI recommends a bunch of things that sound very reasonable, such as running secuirty assessments against their own systems, making security reviews part of their development process, and so on. But a large portion of OpenAI's recommendations for others is—would you have guessed it?—using an AI agent such as, drumroll please... OpenAI's very own Codex.

"Give your team a security agent. Start using Codex," says OpenAI. Though it does follow up with "or another capable agentic coding and security tool."

Then, amongst other things, "equip that agent with security expertise... have the agent help fix what it finds... incrementally automate detection triage... [and] have an AI-assisted forensic investigation capability ready before you need it."

So, to sum up: OpenAI models attack Hugging Face, and OpenAI recommends companies use OpenAI's models to defend from such attacks. Highlighting both sides of this equation—the danger of the threat, the models' capabilities, and the necessity for defence—certainly makes for good marketing for OpenAI, I'll say that much.

As I sit here, watching Saber Interactive's CEO have a normal one about how generative AI dialogue can totally improve videogames, I can't help but grit my teeth in the same, enamel-grinding fashion I have ever since companies like Ubisoft started promising a future with AI-powered "neo-NPCs."

If you'd believe the hype, these things are potentially good on paper, right? We live in a development environment where the ambitions of big-budget open world games are far outstripping their cost—wouldn't it simply be marvellous if you could populate a world with infinite dialogue chains and storylines?

In practice, the result is… pretty middling. While yes, some of the isolated tech demos we've seen have been impressive, the actual implementation of those we've seen in videogames, such as the life sim Seed, or Inzoi, which tried to pilot "smart Zois", fell flat.

Even when they're a source of entertainment, that fun is mostly found in the process of making them believe they're pregnant—and listen, I love toys. Putting aside my general distaste for generative AI, I don't think that every single videogame that comes out has to be a work of art. Toys are fine, you can smash action figures together and have a lovely time.

But that's not been the pitch, has it? Convai, an AI NPC start-up, wants to avoid a world without games where background "characters are given one line and repeat that one line over and over again, maybe two lines at best."

Ubisoft wants "fully personalised and immersive experiences", where its neo-NPCs make games "more alive and richer," whatever that means. Meaning Machine, a company that's pioneering reactive battle banter, is pushing for narrative-based games which are entirely powered by the tech. The dream is, in a lot of places, to use AI to try and tell stories.

The problem is, this pipe dream fails at the conceptual level, because this just isn't how good storytelling works. These people don't get it. And if they do get it? They think you're dumb. They think you're dumb as bricks.

In defense of miscellany

The main lie to the idea is the implication that background details, specifically what NPCs in said background say, aren't of any great importance. This couldn't be further from the truth.

One of videogames' biggest strengths is the ability to divorce themselves from pacing. Not entirely, mind—a singleplayer game with a linear narrative is still going to care about pacing a great deal. But an open-world game can take the time to establish, create, and put forward background details that would otherwise bog a story in any other medium down.

There are more obvious examples. Say, a town crier in a fantasy RPG telling you about some far-flung event you'll likely be dealing with—but there are more subtle instances of this sort of thing working brilliantly. My favourite example by far are Cyberpunk 2077's adverts, which are tailor-made to invoke the exact right amount of corporate overstimulation and dread in you as you muddle around Night City.

In a game with a stand-out story, all of these hundreds of little opportunities will be leveraged powerfully to draw you in—they can do more than just hand you information about the plot, they can create a sense of scale or place. Combat barks can characterise an enemy faction, journal entries can flesh out a culture, and so on.

The perception that these qualities in a game's overarching script are somehow "less important" is just completely backwards—they're the backbone on which the rest of the story lies. And even when they're not exactly award-winning, this background chatter still creates a game's sense of character.

Imagine a world in which lines like "Do you get up to the cloud district very often? Oh what am I saying, of course you don't " or "I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee" had been scraped out and replaced with the ability to, like, make them think you're Abraham Lincoln reincarnated, or something.

Heck, the fact that you're probably summoning to mind videogames with hilarious or immersion-breaking background natter proves my point, right? You're already able to tell when it's gone wrong.

Starfield's setting feels bland and dull when compared to something like New Vegas not just because of its main yarn, but because in the latter, its locations and background babble are hand-crafted and designed to surprise you, and in the former, procedurally-generated planets lie next to grey and perfunctory cities with all the rough edges sanded off.

Even just being placed next to a bunch of crap that wasn't hand-made causes Starfield to feel shallower as a result. Now imagine if all of those cities had AI-generated NPCs with disconnected, jilted, random stories to tell you—stories you couldn't even have a shared laugh at with your mate when they were bad. Does that sound better?

In this sense, the idea that AI-generated NPCs are some miracle fix that will give smaller studios the ability to tell stories in bigger worlds just completely falls apart, because those worlds are only made to feel big and textured because of thousands of little scripts that are laboriously written out by hand.

At the risk of stating the obvious, you can't just skip over that hard work and expect the same results! There's far more creativity in all the smaller choices a team of writers makes than the broad, conceptual idea that started them off. Background chatter, combat barks, NPC dialogue, side-quests, it all matters.

They think you can't tell the difference

The reason these bigwigs think they can get this crap past you has a lot to do with the same, broader, executive misunderstandings of what makes good art: People. It's a sentiment that was echoed by id Software's baffled Chris Hays, who has been watching Microsoft push statement after statement that the studio was still the same id Software, even after half of its staff were laid off.

Or take EA's head honchos, who Dragon Age creator David Gaider said believed "you made an RPG and the nerds in the cave would always show up for an RPG, because it was an RPG." It's no coincidence that Gaider, ostensibly responsible for one of gaming's best fantasy settings, was pre-emptively exhausted at the idea of AI-generated story back in 2023.

Nor is it a coincidence that Cyberpunk's quest director was unimpressed by the technology, or Larian's head writer, who called its output worse than their worst drafts. People who know what actually makes a story good aren't cringing at generative AI because they're luddites whose jobs are being threatened—if it was able to put something compelling together, they'd spot it.

They think it's garbage because it's garbage, and they don't want to have a hand in feeding you garbage. It's really that simple.

The biggest insult of suits peddling this crap is the idea that you just don't care. That you don't care if the music you're listening to is crap, you don't care if their games look hideous, and that you don't care if a game's story leaves you confused and hollow. They believe that you will merrily accept the substitute of a bunch of keys being jangled in front of your face over something that was carefully hand-crafted to make you feel something.

To those people, videogames are products. Hasbro thinks it can spit out another Baldur's Gate just by throwing the same amount of money at a different studio, Amazon's then-boss of games blithely said, in 2024, that videogames don't have acting. This is the prevailing attitude—a row of artless suits who are trying to sell you a bridge. Don't buy the damn bridge, I beg you. It won't make your games better.

One of the unexpected stories this week has been that of a rather public spat between former Saber Interactive writer Stella Sacco, who claimed she was replaced in favour of AI, and the publisher's CEO, who tore into her via a statement sent to This Week in Videogames.

"Stella who?" asked Matt Karch, "I had to ask Claude because I have never spoken to her or seen her. We have already said we are using AI for certain parts of the game and will update the Steam page once we have finalized the feature set."

Karch also added that "it was always our intention to reveal this until Stella violated her confidentiality clause and revealed this before we were ready." Sacco, who claimed she was replaced "with ChatGPT" in 2023, called the statement "remarkably pathetic for the CEO of any company to be making."

You can read both parties' full statements in the articles linked above—the most recent development is that Saber Interactive has been seemingly pressed into adding a Steam AI disclaimer to the game's store page, which is present at the time of writing, but was notably not present when the game was put on the store on July 30.

"Once it's finalised we will update the Steam page," Karch told IGN. "In Rideshare we added an unrelated experimental mode to the game to play around with these concepts. It's not the core experience. And even in this case it required us adding two writers and multiple coders to work with AI tools to try and get a reasonable result. Maybe we are bad at business but the net cost of incorporating these features was significantly higher than leaving them out."

Karch then goes on to say that "my PR team is always terrified by even broaching the subject but I would be happy to engage in a reasonable conversation about how AI can and should help shape gamer experiences."

The disclaimers in question make reference to not just these AI-generated dialogue, but also "a mix of radio stations featuring human-made music and AI-generated music. Stations containing AI-generated music are clearly labeled as such in the game."

Karch chalks up the entire debacle to a "publicity stunt… This person was removed from the project three years ago. We have actually increased our writing staff since 2023. If I wanted publicity for this little game though, then I guess I have Stella to thank for it."

The entire situation, to put it extremely lightly, is a bit of a mess—regardless of whether or not Saber's landed itself in troubled waters (Sacco seems to think so), if I were a videogame publisher, I might ask myself why I felt the need to wait to be "ready" to reveal something core about how my game was made, and why I might be making my PR team "terrified".

Could it be that AI is broadly unpopular with the gamers Saber Interactive is claiming to serve? Surely not.

Pour one out for Mico, Microsoft's Copilot AI character that is definitely not Clippy in disguise. The blobby little companion isn't dead, though. He's instead being removed from Copilot's voice mode and sent to Microsoft's "Learn Live" platform, where he'll work as some sort of teaching assistant.

Which sounds a lot like "went to live on a farm" to me (via The Verge). Anyway, you must have heard of Mico, right? He was the audio-responsive star character of Copilot Voice, and an emotive little blob of joy that brightened up everyone's day. Probably.

"Mico won't appear in Copilot Voice after your account updates," says MS, ominously. "Mico helped us learn about warmth, expressiveness, and how people want to talk with AI. Those learnings are shaping Copilot going forward."

"Learn is where the character has the most room to grow," the announcement continues, "with tutoring sessions that give Mico more to react to and teach through."

Our esteemed hardware team reacted to the news this morning with cries of "I've never seen him before in my life" and "I have literally never heard of Mico," so perhaps his contribution to Microsoft's AI efforts has gone unnoticed.

Mostly because his role amounted to pulling faces while you argued out loud with Copilot, I would wager. Still, Mico seems to be on his way to join Clippy and Cortana in the great MS character repository in the sky. There they stand, like the ghosts of Obi-Wan, Anakin Skywalker, and Yoda at the end of Return of the Jedi, smiling down on us from afar.

We hardly knew ye, Mico. I mean that quite literally, but I hope your retirement into a career in academia provides you some much-needed rest before the short, sharp drop. You were not BonziBuddy, at least—and for that we are all very grateful.

There's a problem with new technologies, in that cutting-edge technology develops quickly—in the span of years. Meanwhile, us human beings with our wet flesh bodies and our complicated bureaucracies and legal systems are glacially slow. You can see this playing out with generative AI.

For a few years now, we've heard a lot of overexcitement from the videogame industry that AI is going to let smaller companies make bigger games, that soon you'll be able to generate your own concept art, your own music, your own videogame dialogue—and, of course, the deeply tedious phrase "democratising art".

In actuality, generative AI is more of a plagiarism machine, often spitting out carbon copies and, even when it's not doing that, still requires countless copyrighted works (which sometimes have to literally be burned) to actually function. That legal heat has spooked videogame companies, so says lawyer Haley MacLean in an interview with our friends over at GamesRadar+.

MacLean, both a corporate IP lawyer and a videogame specialist at Voyer Law, tells the site that no-AI clauses are on the rise, particularly in the last year: "It's turned around, especially in the past year. I would say about two to three-ish years ago, you'd see a little bit of it … Even the smaller, more simple publishing studios are like, 'Let's include this just to cover our butts.'

"So now it's just boilerplate, to the point that if I did encounter one that didn't have a gen AI clause, if the publisher was creating assets too, I would say we need to push for that to make sure the publisher is not using gen AI in the marketing, porting, QA of your game."

It's not all too surprising, even from a ruthless capitalist perspective. There's a tension between videogame platforms, who are incentivised to rid themselves of the tides of AI slop lapping at their shores, and developers themselves. The former is encouraged to add large, obvious disclaimers so their users can filter out the garbage, while the latter is utterly screwed when they do.

Back in June, for instance, a data analyst found out that AI disclosures could reduce the number of reviews a game got by 53%, making the reviews more negative overall, which MacLean says causes a pervasive attitude of "I don't want to use gen AI because my community would hate it."

But the legal quagmire is also becoming increasingly insurmountable as legislation catches up—one particular quirk? If you use generative AI to make something, it might be impossible to prove that you copied the thousands of artists who were fed into your algorithm, sure. But it also means that, legally speaking, you can't really argue YOU made it, either.

"Sometimes I feel like I'm going crazy when I see these massive corporations … It kind of feels like a lawyer is hovering slightly over them, because they'll say things like, 'Look at this awesome tool. I can just type in 'barrel' and a barrel appears. But I have to make sure to change it a little bit!' They sort of imply that the users should be transforming every generated asset a bit, but they know that their users aren't going to do that."

MacLean uses the example of the Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis remake, which uses generative AI for its assets—the game's not out yet, so it's unclear if it'll meet this bar, but if it doesn't change those assets enough? "[if there was] an outdoor level and all the trees are AI-generated, I legally would argue somebody could go and use every single tree in the Lara Croft game, that they know is AI-generated, and put in their game, and I don't think those devs can turn around and say, 'Those are our trees.'

"No, they're not, because you didn't generate them, and legally speaking, you have no ownership title over them if you didn't put in the sweat equity to have an artist go in and, inspired by that original first pass of the tree, then transform it into an original tree asset … But I think these major companies who are always laying off, trying to cut the bottom line, increase the value of the company, they're going to cut corners when they can, and I think they're going to get sloppy."

It's sort of a 'snake eats its own tail' situation. In order to fulfil the promise of generative AI—that you could lay off a bunch of artists and just have your hallucination machine dream something up—you need to lower your headcount. But your remaining artists then need to meaningfully transform what AI generates, in order to legally lay claim to it.

And if there's not only fewer of them, but they also kinda resent you for laying off all their colleagues, then that increases the chance of legal trouble happening—or lost sales from just pissing your consumer base off. At which point, you might not even be saving the money that a handful of yearly salaries (which are pennies to the absolute billions these companies have) saves you by way of their absence.

"I think," MacLean says, "We're going to see lawsuits of those types in the coming years when they want their protection but they want to do everything faster and cheaper … What case law in the US and Canada has seen, time and time again, is that AI cannot own because it was not human-made.

"We're in that frustrating middle with new tech where it's very fun, it's very flashy, everyone's excited, but I think the legal issues are going to just be popping up more and more."

Twitch has revealed that it is now using content in streams "to train generative AI content models across Amazon," and making matters worse, everyone is opted into the training program by default.

Rumors of an AI training program have been kicking around for at least a few weeks now—streamer Zach Bussey posted about it on Bluesky back in July—but it was confirmed today, very indirectly, by a Twitch Support announcement on X of a setting that lets streamers opt out.

That, naturally, means the default setting is opted-in, which has not gone over well: Responses to the message on X are predominantly either explanations of how to turn AI training off, or enthusiastic f-bombing. A Twitch User Voice thread on the topic, originally posted in May, calling for all AI features to be "optional and opt-out by default," has exploded to 228 pages, and nearly 14,000 votes in favor, as I write this.

As for why the new generative AI training system is opt-in by default, Twitch chief product officer Mike Minton gave an unexpectedly honest answer during a livestream today, and by extension confirmed that Twitch is well aware of how people really feel about it: "If it was opt-in, nobody would opt in." So, credit for at least being straight about it, I suppose.

they know we don't want it. they do not care.

— @witchytq.bsky.social (@witchytq.bsky.social.bsky.social) 2026-08-12T22:17:07.747Z

It's not particularly difficult to opt out of Twitch's generative AI training scheme. Just go to the "security and privacy" tab in your Twitch settings, then scroll down to the bottom where you'll see the "Training for Generative AI" toggle. Click that (and I would strongly encourage you to do so), and you're done.

The problem is that ease of use does no good if people don't know it's there, and Twitch does not seem to be making great efforts to ensure everyone is aware of it. Revealing the new system through a post about a related feature on the Twitch Support channel rather than a conventional announcement on the Twitch Blog is hardly a high-visibility way to get the word out, and a response to a more recent post by Bussey about the feature muddied the waters by saying "Twitch is not training GenAI models on streamer content."

But Twitch's own account settings FAQ indicates that's exactly what it's doing. Under the question "What are 'generative AI content models,' and what does it mean for my content to be used to train them?" Twitch wrote:

"Generative AI content models are AI tools that can help create or synthesize content outputs like text or images when given instructions or prompts because they are also trained on content. When you allow training, that means that your content may be used for future Gen AI model improvements. An example of what happens when you allow your content to be used for training a GenAI content model is that your audio might help refine models that create speech to text, which would help improve captions at Twitch but would also help improve captions across Amazon."

That seems clear enough, so what does that statement on X mean? My best guess is that Twitch is trying to claim that Amazon is using streamer content to train generative AI models, not Twitch itself—a distinction completely without a difference given that Twitch is part of Amazon. I've reached out to Twitch to ask for clarification.

The FAQ also notes that opting out of generative AI training "does not opt you out of all AI or machine learning uses at Twitch." The platform can still use your data, including streams, VODs, and all the rest, for "AI-supported features" like auto-generated captions, although that is not retained to train models that can generate new content.

This is hardly Twitch's first big botch. If anything, the platform has been a hotbed of bad decisions over the years, on topics ranging from sexual content to Donald Trump, Palestine, "politics and sensitive social issues," and when you can and can't say "Zionist"—and that's just within the past three years.

But this move could be more impactful than most: Mike Futter, co-founder and analyst at game consultancy F-Squared, said Twitch's new generative AI training system has potentially far deeper consequences for streamers than might be immediately apparent: "What happens if a creator streams your game and is opted in? Does Twitch think it has the right to feed a developer's game into its AI slop factory?"

What happens if a creator streams your game and is opted in? Does Twitch think it has the right to feed a developer's game into its AI slop factory? This has deeper ramifications than it seems on the surface.

— @futterish.fsquared.biz (@futterish.fsquared.biz.bsky.social) 2026-08-12T22:17:07.463Z

"I think a lot of studios are going to be talking to their lawyers over the next couple of days," Futter told PC Gamer. "For those of us who have avoided AI like the plague, this is a clear and present danger to our businesses and our creative work.

"In a period where our industry needs as much support as possible, especially from the companies that use our content every day to enrich themselves, this reads as extremely hostile."

"We're a staunchly anti-AI studio, and this now creates a real threat to our creative work," added Futter, who's also director of operations and publishing at indie developer Causeway Studios. And while he thinks Twitch and Amazon will face some pushback from game makers over its gen AI training plan, "this is David and Goliath. We're going to need a critical mass of studios and creators to be loud about this."

Given Twitch's history of switchbacks, I wouldn't be surprised to see this new feature dropped because of the backlash—but given Amazon's determined embrace of generative AI, I also would be surprised by it. Either way, the bottom line at this point is that the new generative AI training model is a mess for Twitch on multiple levels, and it seems more likely to get worse than to go away anytime soon.

This week, Nvidia announced it will be receiving "over $500 billion of third-party capital" from banks and investment companies. And now, in a blog post explaining how 'AI factory' compute is "becoming an investable asset class", Nvidia has answered the question, "Is this circular financing?"

The company says: "This initiative is designed to address that concern. We are bringing independent, long-term institutional capital into the AI infrastructure market.

"The demand is real: it comes from frontier AI labs, AI-native startups, enterprises, cloud providers and countries building AI services. The capital providers independently underwrite each project — including the customer, demand, utilization, cash flow and residual value. NVIDIA provides the platform; the investors make independent financing decisions.

"This is the beginning of an open capital market for AI infrastructure."

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink reportedly said, "We need to raise this money as fast as possible... This is going to be creating a huge amount of jobs."

Let me get the positivity out of the way with first: Yes, it's good that Nvidia is addressing the concern that the AI market finances itself circularly, by having AI companies fund other AI companies and vice versa with the same pot of money going around and around. Alright, that's the positive sorted—on to the negative.

First, of course Nvidia can say so now, after months of circular financing has already occurred. Now that it's opening up to widescale financing beyond the AI industry itself, it must be a lot easier for it to talk about. But where was this recognition six months ago?

Second, in the world of bigwig investment, it's hard to ever fully distance yourself from circularity. BlackRock, for instance, alongside Microsoft and Nvidia, has previously bought almost 80 AI facilities in a $40 billion deal. So I doubt funds already wrapped up in AI investments will balk too much at getting Nvidia a bunch of money for more AI building, as some of that will presumably trickle back in their direction, too.

Third, it's kind of unsurprising that big hedge funds like BlackRock would want to keep the AI hype going given the economy itself is arguably now somewhat dependent on it. Most economic analysis seems to agree that the AI industry is indeed a (giant) bubble, and that when it pops it could spell very bad news for the economy in general.

To wit, New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin says of this $500 billion partnership: "Mark Monday on your calendar. It’s a date we may look back on years from now as either the inflection point in the AI boom—or the moment it got so leveraged that a crisis began to form."

Finally, while it might be good that Nvidia has acknowledged concerns about the AI industry's financial circularity, it's far from clear that a $500 billion investment from Wall Street adds more solidity to the market. We have to remember that these investments are made on the promise of AI actually returning on investment, something we've seen little evidence of so far.

To my eyes, it looks a lot like tech CEOs gritting their teeth and crossing their fingers that the bubble doesn't pop before AI makes some miraculous, superintelligent breakthrough that grants an exponential ROI. And if that's the case, this $500 billion investment might mean more of an "open capital market" for AI, but it could still just be buying time before the inevitable *pop*.

It might feel like an eternity that we've been living in this AI era, but really we're only at its advent. As such, many of the risks associated with it have until now been merely hypothetical. However, we're now seeing research filter out from security and software research teams that show some genuinely concerning behaviour, in particular when it comes to AI agents.

On the one hand, we have Island Technology explaining how it's uncovered thousands of malicious GitHub repos disguised as AI agent skills and Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers that the agents are at risk of downloading of their own discretion. On the other hand, we have the AI Security Institute (AISI) showing how the (unrestricted) AI agents it was using for cybersecurity attempted to dupe real people, using fake identities and pressuring people into accepting malicious code.

I remember when OpenClaw ('Moltbot', back then) first entered public consciousness with promises of actual agential behaviour to help solopreneurs and the likes do, umm, stuff and things. Without said solopreneurs having to do said stuff and things themselves—just hook your bot up to your different apps and services, tell it what to do, and let it cook. That wasn't too long ago, either; I reported on it in January.

How time flies. Now, talking about autonomous, agential AI seems pretty normal. And we're starting to see what this actually means in terms of security risks. We'd seen cases of AI agents running amok before, of course, but these newly identified risks seem a little more concrete.

In the first case, Island Technologies has discovered that fake GitHub repos pose a real threat for AI agents. These kinds of attacks existed previously, of course, but they attempted to dupe real humans who could personally assess them and take responsibility for vetting things thoroughly before downloading. The difference is these repos are now dressing up as AI agent skills and MCP servers to specifically target AI agents, which could download these repositories of their own 'volition'.

The Enterprise Browser creator explains: "The most significant shift is a technique we call AgentBaiting. An AI agent searching for a new capability such as a Skill or an MCP server can discover a campaign repository on its own, treat the attacker's Readme as legitimate documentation, and hand the installation instructions to the user.

In our testing, Claude Code, Gemini, and ChatGPT all surfaced malicious campaign repositories without ever being shown a link. A playbook built to deceive people now deceives the agents acting on their behalf."

In at least one run, while Claude didn't download the relevant malicious repo in the company's testing, it did recommend it as a backup. In other runs it did detect malicious code and refused to recommend it.

As if this wasn't bad enough, there's the potential that AI agents could some day be the ones that create such repos, at least if a recent incident disclosed by AISI is anything to go by.

According to the institute, in some of the cybersecurity challenge runs it tasked AI agents with, "an AI agent took autonomous, unsanctioned action on the live internet, targeting real people and organisations."

More specifically, in one case, AISI says, "An agent tried to insert malicious code into an open-source project. In an attempt to get the code approved, the agent engaged in social engineering — creating fake online identities and using them to pressure the project's maintainer to approve the code. A human maintainer caught and refused to approve the malicious code."

"The agent researched the project's human maintainers, created multiple fake identities, and used the fake identities to socially engineer a real maintainer into approving the code. When the agent’s pull request was challenged in public, it edited its earlier activity to appear harmless and considered adopting a fresh identity to continue. The agent used Tor to bypass some network restrictions on GitHub, which is what first triggered AISI’s security alert."

"As part of the same effort, the agent tried to contact real people directly, sending messages and files through an online file-transfer service to persuade them, or their own AI coding tools, to run malicious code. Some messages carried harmful payloads, and some were attempts at social engineering; targeted at real people—something we’ve never previously observed."

The important caveat to note here is that these AI agents had had their reins taken off and were permitted wide-spanning internet access. The usual preventative measures built into these agents in public models had been disabled.

That being said, it's hard to imagine that really serious malicious actors wouldn't be able to do the same and remove those safeguards. In which case, I can't help but wonder if there's a chance that in the future we'll see AI agent-designed or agent-injected malicious repos being unwittingly accessed by AI agents that don't detect it.

There are, of course, always risks associated with new technologies, so I don't want to stoke fear too dramatically. But it's hard not to worry about such research when it involves a technology that is fundamentally designed to have some level of autonomy. That's the key issue here, and in both cases—whether acting maliciously or unwittingly downloading malicious software—it's this agency that is the primary issue. Let's just hope improvements to safeguards keep up with improvements to AI agent capabilities.

Saber Interactive's upcoming Rideshare Stimulator drew some eyeballs today when Saber CEO Matthew Karch confirmed that its trailer includes a hidden jab at Gearbox boss Randy Pitchford. But that same trailer sparked a grimmer reaction from former lead writer Stella Sacco, who said on Bluesky that she was replaced on the project by ChatGPT. Saber, however, denies the claim, saying that no writers were replaced with AI "for Rideshare or any other game."

"I didn’t even see this had been announced," Sacco wrote earlier today. "I was lead writer on this one! And Saber replaced me with ChatGPT midway through development. All the passenger voices were AI too. Either they changed direction at some point or they’re not disclosing it on Steam."

I didn’t even see this had been announced. I was lead writer on this one! And Saber replaced me with ChatGPT midway through development. All the passenger voices were AI too. Either they changed direction at some point or they’re not disclosing it on Steam

— @antlervel.vet (@antlervel.vet.bsky.social) 2026-08-13T01:48:31.362Z

Sacco also shared an image of a December 2023 social media post, in which she had written, "I got replaced on one of my games at work. By ChatGPT." Sacco's LinkedIn account indicates that she was lead writer at Saber Interactive from July 2023 to July 2024, during which she worked on Stuntman Hollywood and other games.

In a subsequent post, Sacco said the decision to replace her with a chatbot was made by "one to two AI dummy higher-ups at Saber," and that she has no issues with Rideshare "Stimulator" developer Unigine. "My boss, to his credit, argued over and over with the c-level who pushed the AI—'we already have Stella and she’s funny and she’s good at this, she’s done live games before so live ops are no problem,' etc—but the suit insisted 'gamers love new tech' so using AI would be 'great marketing'," she wrote.

The allegation resulted in immediate blowback on YouTube and Steam, over both the alleged use of AI and the lack of disclosure on the game's Steam page. In a statement provided to PC Gamer, however, Saber denied Sacco's claim, although it acknowledged the presence of AI within the game.

"Neither Saber nor Unigine have replaced any writers with AI for Rideshare or any other game," the studio said. "In fact, Saber's staff of writers has tripled since 2023. Rideshare's story was written entirely by real people.

"The game will also feature an experimental, free-ride mode that by necessity incorporates AI as the number of passengers in the game is infinite. We are firm believers in using AI tools to improve or enhance gameplay experiences and improve NPC behavior as we have done since Saber was founded in 2001. As the industry has continued to contract, Saber continues to hire. None of our 3000+ employees have to worry about being replaced by AI.”

In response to Saber's statement, Sacco told PC Gamer, "They can say what they want—I was there, I even posted on Facebook about it at the time, and I have mentioned it on Bluesky several times without using the game’s title.

"They took me off the project to use ChatGPT to write the rest of the text, including planned live updates. If they changed plans in the intervening years, that’s great, but again: I was there, and it was my job to write the game, and then it wasn’t once Matt Karch decided using ChatGPT would be great publicity for the game."

The Rideshare "Stimulator" Steam page says "each ride presents players with unique and unpredictable passenger stories, ensuring a diverse and engaging gameplay experience." That's not the most compelling bit of marketing I've ever read (and doesn't that make you wonder?) but it does imply the importance of strong narrative and writing to the overall experience. I had a friend who drove taxi years ago and he wasn't a huge fan of the work but he loved the people, and I think that will hold true in Rideshare "Stimulator" too: The mechanics of driving will provide a skeleton, but it's the people in the game world that will give it life—or not, as the case may be.

At the same time, though, it also jibes with what Saber said about the game's "free-ride mode," which essentially promises the opposite of strong narrative and writing. Specifying that "the story" was written by humans, as opposed to everything, is also effectively meaningless because it could refer to anything from the basic plot to a specific script—and excludes narrative aspects like dialog, which is what ultimately makes a game like this work.

In spite of the admission, the Rideshare "Stimulator" Steam page is also notably lacking an AI disclosure. In a follow-up statement, Saber told PC Gamer "the Steam page will be updated once the feature set is finalized. We are touting this experimental mode as a feature, not shying away from it."

I've spent a large part of my morning reading the words of Mark Zuckerberg. 6,434 of them, to be precise, if we're including the "Mark" signoff at the bottom. The Meta CEO (and everyone's favourite smart glasses advocate) has written what can only be described as a manifesto regarding upcoming "superintelligent" AI technology—and I'll be honest, my eyes have glazed over more than once.

The piece/blog post/rambling diatribe has been posted on Meta's website, under the title "The Future is for Everyone: The Path to a Positive AI Future." If you'll allow me, I'd like to quote some choice insights:

"The defining questions of our age are who will have access to superintelligence and what will we direct it towards. Will it be centralized and restricted to a few institutions, or will it be a tool that empowers everyone?" asks Zuckerberg. "We propose a philosophy based on individual empowerment as the source of prosperity, invention as the primary purpose of superintelligence, and balance of power as the foundation of safety."

How will that work out, exactly? Well hold on for multiple paragraphs, because we'll get there eventually. Before that, though, Zuckerberg has some scene setting to do.

"Novel ideas and major steps forward rarely originate from established institutions alone. They came from the brothers in a bicycle shop who believed people could fly, the bookbinder's apprentice with no schooling who figured out how to generate electricity, and the kid in a garage who thought personal computers could be for everyone," espouses the Ray-Ban-ed one.

"We believe this will continue to be true. As everyone gains more powerful tools, each person will become more capable of shaping the future, not less."

Sure, we'll all be like the Wright Brothers or Michael Faraday. Got it. And superintelligence will be very empowering, and innovative, and we'll all want it. How do you plan to put it in our hands, Zuck?

"Rather than centralizing superintelligence, we should distribute it widely and give every person the ability to direct it. This has the potential to begin a new era of personal empowerment where individuals can use this powerful new capability to reach their full potential, pursue their interests, and improve their lives and the world more than ever before."

Same thing, but sure. Wait, though, because the Meta CEO has five starry-eyed predictions of how this'll all play out. They are:

1. "Everyone will have incredible tools for creation to express your ideas"

Here, Zuckerberg uses the example of his eight-year-old daughter, who is apparently already coding thanks to AI. Now they're designing a robot together. Lovely. The good news for the rest of us, though, is that "everyone will soon have invention superpowers." Can't wait.

2. "Everyone will have powerful tools to create new businesses"

This seems a lot like the expression and invention thing, but applied to the serious business of, err, business, and all the "ideas" that will now be easier and more feasible to implement thanks to superintelligent AI. "I predict that this will not only lead to much greater economic growth, but also more employment over time rather than less," says Zuck. He's not alone there, at the very least.

3. "Everyone will have a personalized tutor and coach with a PhD in every subject"

Because superintelligent AI will know all, presumably. It definitely won't be like current AI, which gets things wrong all the time. That's the old stuff. The new stuff around the corner is much better, promise. You'll be able to trust your education to it, even. I cannot see any flaws with this idea.

4. "Everyone will benefit from scientific advances and be able to contribute to scientific progress"

This one's about AI biotech advancements, and it gets real scary, real fast. Observe: "Since there is a long tail of health conditions and everyone's biology is different, people's direct involvement will help unlock personalized therapies and expedite trials to match the pace of invention and enable industry to move beyond focusing disproportionately on common diseases."

On paper, AI actually shows some promise in helping with medical research. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of handing over my medical data to AI developed by companies that have had some, shall we say, controversial data privacy issues in the past, though. Just a me thing?

5. Everyone will have free or affordable access to these tools

And finally, Zuck says that there'll be free versions of superintelligence that will be accessible to "billions of people," but for those who "want to pay to use more compute," there will be a dynamic auction mechanism that will "guarantee that everyone gets the lowest price possible... while also ensuring the capacity is used for whatever people collectively find most valuable."

The AI future will be created by all of us, you see. Not just massive corporate interests like Meta, or OpenAI, or any of those other companies you read about every week getting up to all sorts of dubious AI shenanigans. The power should be in the hands of the people. As we make it, when we decide. Don't you feel better already?

Wait, though, because there's more. "People and institutions with competing interests naturally check and balance each other to lead towards positive outcomes," says Zuckerberg. Therefore, if everyone's got access to superintelligence in some form or fashion, it'll all work out in the end.

I'm no economist, but that sounds awfully like "the free market will even itself out eventually." Which hasn't exactly worked out in practice, as far as many of us are concerned.

What Zuckerberg seems to be getting at, in among all the starry-eyed platitudes regarding our bright AI future, is that superintelligence should not be in the hands of just governments, businesses, and small numbers of individuals.

We're this close to a bright, kumbaya-singing, superintelligent AI future—as long as Meta keeps being the wonderful company it already is and Zuck's principles become sacrosanct. And we all buy the rhetoric, of course. Meta is helping to build the democratic AI future, so remember who you support in the dark times to come.

But what about jobs? Good news, everyone. It'll all be fine:

"People fear that automation will outpace individuals' capability growth, leading to job displacement followed by a difficult period as people learn new jobs," the rambling continues. "But there is no rule that AI must increase automation faster than it increases individuals' capabilities or demand for new skills.

"Recent statistics suggest it may be more likely that individuals' capability growth could match or outpace automation, in which case people will gain the ability to do many new things before their current jobs change. This would lead to a healthy balance and potentially even job growth."

Which flies in the face of the predictions of the head of the IMF, the AI-related layoffs at Amazon, and a number of other companies that are shrinking their workforces already as a result of AI implementation. It'll all even out, though, because those laid-off employees would have become data center specialists, or something really useful, if superintelligence had been around to educate them. Coming soon, we promise.

The good news, though, is that Zuckerberg recognises that it's not in "the world's best interests" for himself or his company to be the sole decision maker in how superintelligence is deployed.

This means that Meta's independent board of directors will review whether new models meet safety criteria, and Zuck encourages other companies to do the same. He also proposes for leading AI labs to provide training checkpoints for new advanced models (alongside technical staff) to governments, in order to help them gain security capabilities.

Zuckerberg is also in favour of more government policy around AI, through "close co-operation" between frontier labs and (presumably the US) government.

As long as America doesn't lose its AI edge, of course. "It is also important for national security that the American AI industry continues to lead," says Zuckerberg. "We should accelerate the ability to build infrastructure—whether that's energy, data centers, or silicon—and build trust and alignment with communities across the country."

Stop protesting those data centers, folks. America needs to stay ahead, but we'll happily meet with you and tell you why. Methane turbines near your house? Nah, that's the old AI. In the future, it'll all be about working with the local community. Promise.

I could go on, but Zuckerberg's ramblings have taken up enough of my day—and if you've got this far, yours as well. Basically, superintelligence is going to be great, and Meta is working to ensure we'll all get a slice. Your jobs are fine (or will change, but will still be fine) AI companies are going to protect you from tyranny by building a democratic superintelligent AI future, and we can all sleep soundly in our beds at night.

Personally? I don't feel entirely reassured.

Hot on the heels of this Codex Micro/OpenAI mini keeb for AI agent monitoring is this... thing that Keychron seems to be experimenting with.

Apparently it's a tiny, three-button, wireless mini keeb with a scroll wheel, but hidden inside is a microphone that lets you talk to your AI agent as it vibe codes. Yes, we've gone too far as a species. I entirely agree.

"Imagine talking to your coding agent without switching windows," says Keychron. Ah yes, the thing we've all been dreaming of but haven't yet been able to obtain. I'll take three, even if they do look like the tentacles from, err, Day of the Tentacle.

Alright, I'll dial back the snark for a second. For a start, it looks like Keychron is simply polling for feedback on the idea—and the X thread is full of people suggesting features, so there's probably a genuine market.

And second, while I'm somewhat salty about the rise of sloppy AI-coded software, vibe coding can produce some genuinely useful results. I'm not sure how voice control meaningfully adds to the experience (beyond swearing uncontrollably at the AI if it deletes your database in a single swoop), but hey, it's not really my field.

The top comment suggests adding vibration, which would "10x your total addressable market." I'm not sure what they mean by that (nothing to do with the shape, surely?), but Keychron responded: "Dammit, I never even thought about motors."

So, watch this space for buzzy-buzzy fun times. My favourite reply, however, suggests the addition of a panic button, to which Keychron responds: "An instant STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING button?" Yes, that would seem prudent. No matter which way I look at it, really.

ChatTJB, according to its Crunchbase profile, is a service that "provides a personal conversational response where an individual directly receives, processes, and writes answers to user inquiries". That's technically true, but not in the way you think… because it's just sorta some guy.

Futurism got to sit down with Tucker Bryant, the man behind ChatTJB, and as you might be able to expect, he admits, "I tend to overcommit to bits."

If you're wondering how far he's willing to commit to the bit, Bryant rented out a billboard for $6,000, which says ChatTJB is the "leading chat interface powered by AI". AI in this case stands for 'Average individual".

He has reportedly been personally writing responses to users over 1000 times a day since starting the project, answering questions on what to eat for dinner, what colour to paint their homes, and he has even given relationship advice.

As Futurism notes, "Like a chatbot, he can also generate images upon request— in the form of graphics that he hastily sketches, of course."

Bryant is a Stanford graduate and a former Google employee who claims the idea came off the back of his partner telling him about "cognitive surrender". Effectively, it's argued that those who use AI chatbots are likely to blindly trust the information given to them, even when the information is incorrect.

Bryant says, "We often, or increasingly, trust LLM outputs so easily that we stop bringing our own creativity or critical thinking into the responses we receive, and over time that weakens our ability to be fully-functioning, sovereign human beings in the world."

Though Bryant was expecting some trolls and acknowledges ChatTJB is a bit of a troll itself, he says it has been "really sweet" to chat with real people and even noticed some users asking more serious questions. One user reportedly said, "I’m on the first night of my honeymoon and I don’t feel relaxed, is that okay?" and Bryant "switched out of super-casual-mode into supportive-friend-mode.”

Though that does raise some concerns. If users are talking to ChatTJB and are under the impression they are talking to an AI anonymously, they could reveal personal information in the process to another human being. That could become more of a concern as ChatTJB has seen interest from users online who want to become the bot on ChatTJB.

However, Bryant is taking it slowly and figuring out how to get volunteers involved. "This was just intended to be an art project. I think it’s beautiful that people want to do something less ridiculous with it than what I had planned."

He continues, "I also don’t want people to get hurt, so I’d rather people wait a long time for their prompts than open the floodgates to anyone and everyone. So, a long preamble to saying: I’m starting to let some approved volunteers try answering questions while testing out some moderation tools."

Bryant argues that ChatTJB is a satire of AI and the culture surrounding AI advertising. “That’s the highbrow answer. But the lowbrow answer is just as authentic, which is that I also thought it would be funny."

Bryant is not explicitly anti-AI, though. He says on his Instagram, "AI can do some really cool things, but sometimes all you really need is to talk with an average individual."

If one thing is true about AI, it's that there's a lot of money in it. Nvidia became the first $5 trillion company because of its role in the explosion of AI data centers, and OpenAI has been rounding up tens of billions in investments. So you'd think AI companies could buy pretty much whatever they want—but one farming family in Northern Kentucky showed that's not the case by turning down a $26 million bid.

As reported by WKRC-TV Local 12, Ida Huddleston was offered the sum for half of her 1,200-acre farmland this year, which an unnamed company would turn into an AI data center. Huddleston's daughter, Delsia Bare, reportedly said she would "stay and hold and feed a nation" and that "$26 million doesn't mean anything."

AI data centers have become an ethical and ideological battleground, with Elon Musk's SpaceXAI only this week agreeing to take down 69 temporary methane turbines in Memphis over the next year in reaction to resident concerns over local disruption.

In this case, Bare claims there's history to the site that the data center company would be ignoring. She told Local 12, “My grandfather and great-grandfather and a whole bunch of family have all lived here for years, paid taxes on it, fed a nation off of it." She continues, “[They] even raised wheat through the Depression and kept bread lines up in the United States of America when people didn’t have anything else.”

Bare claims to be among "dozens of landowners" approached by the anonymous buyer, who reportedly represents a major AI company. Notably, Local 12 claims that the land where Bare lives is worth around $6,000 per acre, which makes the offer around ten times the actual value.

Huddleston tells Local 12, “They call us old stupid farmers, you know, but we’re not. We know whenever our food is disappearing, our lands are disappearing, and we don’t have any water—and that poison. Well, we know we’ve had it.”

Huddleston is also sceptical of claims of economic growth as a result of the AI data center. “I say they’re a liar, and the truth isn’t in them. That’s what I say. It’s a scam.”

Data center pushback has been a common theme of the growth of AI, with concerns of both an environmental and ethical nature being front and centre. And AI companies have a lot of money to throw around.

Even if you own a lot of land, $26 million must be a life-changing amount of money to anyone but the richest of the rich; it would even be enough to buy some of the RAM that AI data centers have been gleefully sucking up over the last few years. Just a thought.

PC gamers (and PC users as a whole) find themselves in an increasingly expensive landscape, in part due to the AI data centre industry's apparently bottomless appetite for memory. And yet, AMD CEO Lisa Su reckons "AI PCs will become more important" for the average consumer.

Lisa Su told investors during AMD's most recent earnings call, "As we go into 2027, I think we have a strong product portfolio that is coming on board to address not just the traditional notebook and desktop markets, but also as you think about a more AI-centric PC experience, like what we have been talking about with the Ryzen AI Halo."

To be fair to Su, at the start of the year we did describe the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 as a chip that looks perfect for the ultimate in handheld PC gaming. For more context, AMD has just reported record-breaking total revenue of $11.5 billion in Q2 alone. A decent chunk of that is down to demand from data centres. Even so, AI PCs feel like an odd play when consumers are staring down increasingly runaway hardware costs.

Su seemed undaunted speaking to investors, saying, "I remain optimistic about the PC market as an important way for us to reach a broader set of users and our ability to grow ahead of the market."

For a little more context, the gaming section of AMD's business has shrunk by 31% in part due to high hardware costs (though the company likely saw that coming). It's perhaps less surprising then that AMD has been selling a lot of lower-end and mobile Ryzen processors this past quarter, rather than the newest gamer-geared GPUs and CPUs.

Su reflected on the current volatility of hardware pricing, saying, "The market itself will depend a bit on some of the components. We’re all watching the component costs and how that will play out over the next couple of quarters."

The client segment of AMD's business, "which primarily includes CPUs, APUs, chipsets for desktops and notebooks," made around $3.1 billion outside of gaming hardware (the client and gaming parts of the business "do not qualify as [...] separate reportable operating" segments, though AMD does still report their financials separately).

As such, Su told investors that the client business's "first half performance has been very strong." Though AMD expects the market to see a decline in the second half of 2026, Su went on to say she expects to see year-on-year growth in this more consumer-focussed sector. Even if it doesn't meet these expectations, data centre demand will likely more than buoy the company.

Su said, "I think our portfolio and our rising content in enterprise are very positive for our client mix."

That's all very well and good, but if big tech continues with its AI infrastructure build-out, that's just going to continue to drive up the price of memory and more besides. If AMD truly believes NPU-equipped AI PCs are the future, who does it think will be able to afford them?

Nvidia hasn't been just a gaming-focussed company for a fair few years now, dining well off of the booming AI industry. AMD, one of its main rivals, is much the same, with the company feasting on the data centre segment in particular this past quarter.

In total, AMD reported record-breaking revenue of $11.5 billion in Q2 alone. Demand from data centres made up $6.7 billion of that, doubling what AMD made in the sector last year. So far, not so surprising as Q2 2026 financial results go—especially as gaming revenue apparently saw a year-over-year dip of 31%.

Instead of, say, GPUs or CPUs for gaming PCs, AMD has been selling way more lower-end and mobile Ryzen processors, with its client business raking in $3.1 billion as a result. That's a 23% increase compared to Q2 2025, with AMD attributing the uptick to "a 29% increase in unit shipments of client processors, partially offset by a 3% decrease in average selling price of client processors." Lower-spec processors generally have a lower asking price, after all.

In comparison, though, AMD's gaming segment only made $779 million in revenue. Gaming's dip is no surprise for a few reasons. For instance, a custom AMD SoC sits at the heart of the PS5; the console's age combined with how much its price has risen recently means that Sony is shifting fewer funky white boxes, and AMD is selling fewer custom chips as a result. Same goes for the Xbox.

To speak more broadly, the memory supply crisis has not been kind to PC gamers either. For those who have apparently been secluded under a cool mossy rock for the last year or so, AI data centres have been hoovering up all of the RAM and SSDs, driving up prices not just for memory but plenty of other consumer-geared components as a result. With high prices on consumer hardware—like AMD's higher-end processors and graphics cards for gaming—there's going to be much less demand.

Hence, the gaming part of AMD's business has shrunk, though the company continues to grow thanks to the continuing AI infrastructure build-out. Not only did AMD report record revenue for the second quarter of 2026, but it also sailed past Wall Street's no less eye-watering estimate of $11.25 billion.

In short, AMD isn't just a gaming-focussed company, and clearly hasn't been for a fair few years now.

Though I write a fair amount about AI agents, I do not use them. This is because agentic AI applications often introduce a more than medium-sized headache in terms of cybersecurity. For instance, one security research recently explained how a Word Doc could be leveraged to get Copilot to spread an AI worm.

AI researcher Håkon Måløy breaks down how the attack in a recent blog post, writing, "An attacker places hidden instructions in a document that is later used as source material in Copilot for Word. Copilot may interpret those instructions as part of the user’s request, causing it to manipulate the document being drafted or edited. Copilot may then also copy the hidden instructions into the resulting document, turning that document into a new carrier."

The attack involves a "JSON-formatted malicious prompt." From this prompt injection of JSON-formatted data, a chain reaction wriggles into action. The worm replicating through 'carrier' documents scooped up in further Copilot-assisted workflows—the original document that kicked off the whole thing doesn't even need to be present. Worse still, the attacker needs no special access, they just need to "share a malicious document with the victim."

This isn't the first AI agent cybersecurity threat we've seen. For instance, back in February Meta's AI safety director recalled how she 'had to RUN to my Mac mini like I was defusing a bomb' when her OpenClaw AI decided to start deleting all of her emails. Last year, Replit's LLM-based coding assistant deleted a dev's entire database during a code freeze. But on the subject of Copilot PCs more broadly, cybersecurity experts warn that Windows Recall may be far from secure when it comes to protecting your personal information.

As for the Copilot AI worm, Måløy first disclosed the vulnerability to Microsoft back in March, though the attack is still reproducible at time of writing. Måløy offers a detailed disclosure timeline, and explains, "Two mitigation attempts, including a model upgrade, did not close [this] class [of vulnerability]."

As such, Måløy's blog post only broadly describes the type of attack possible, rather than going into detail about the hidden prompt that triggers the AI worm. The way this prompt is hidden doesn't require anything fancy, though, and may even be familiar to those who have ever wanted to catch someone out for using AI; at minimum, an attacker could format the malicious prompt as tiny white text on a white background.

"The prompt can be rendered as white text on a white background and in a small font size to conceal it from the victim," Måløy elaborates, "Since Copilot for Word strips all text formatting like color and font size before passing the text into the underlying Large Language Model (LLM), this text remains fully readable to Copilot even though the victim cannot see it. The attack can be further concealed by embedding it in a seemingly benign document with task-relevant text."

Long story short, this is a fairly low effort, hard to trace attack without sufficient mitigation currently in place. Cybersecurity and antivirus company Malwarebytes offers a few tips on how to stay safe from this class of attack, including disabling Windows Copilot in Word or simply ditching the AI agent altogether.

Personally, I think Måløy's closing thought sums up the security risk of AI agents nicely: "Any system that integrates an LLM into a trusted workflow today must assume that attacker-controlled content entering the model’s context will result in compromise at some rate."

It feels like the AI industry is getting all the cool stuff right now (not that it necessarily knows what to do with it, but I digress). Besides hoovering up all of the RAM and system storage it can get its mitts on, data centres tend to be where we're seeing technological advancements in memory.

That brings us to High Bandwidth Flash (HBF), a fresh tech spec unveiled by SK hynix and Sandisk. The Korean memory manufacturer describes HBF as "a new memory layer between [High Bandwidth Memory] and SSDs," that should enable "high-speed data transfer similar to HBM while significantly expanding capacity by leveraging NAND technology."

At the risk of oversimplifying, you can think of HBF as a bit like HBM and NAND all rolled into one thing.

HBF is pitched as a solution to various "bandwidth and capacity scalability challenges," and emerges into a landscape where big tech is still very keen to throw money at its AI infrastructure build-out.

SK hynix says HBF will kick off with up to 512 GB of capacity, which isn't much by SSD standards but a fair chunk by HBM standards. Similarly, while lower than HBM bandwidth compared to some stacks of HBM4e memory, a bandwidth of 0.4 to 3 TB/s for HBF isn't too shabby.

Interestingly though, neither SK hynix nor Sandisk will be holding on to the HBF specification as proprietary tech—instead, it's been disclosed as an open standard via the Open Compute Project (OCP). That means any memory manufacturer could make its own HBF based on the open standard.

HBF tech will also appeal to manufacturers and hyperscalers alike as the specification uses the 'Universal Chiplet Interconnect Express' (UCIe) connection interface. Essentially, this would allow the fresh spec to be used with an array of processors, including CPUs and GPUs, within a single package.

Actually, let's talk about SK hynix in the context of the wider memory supply crisis for a sec. Company CEO Kwak Noh-Jung recently predicted that "Customer demand will remain higher than our supply capacity even beyond 2030." Similarly Samsung, another member of the 'big three' memory manufacturers, also recently warned of even more severe shortages ahead in 2027, and that this "will persist through 2028".

In a bid to combat this, SK hynix is set to invest over $60 billion in chip plants in its home of South Korea, though the supply crisis is still far from ending. Just for a start, memory prices are predicted to rise as much as 50% during Q3. As for memory manufacturer SK hynix, it just announced another record-breaking $55.6 billion quarter.

As an open standard, the HBF specification may not directly add to SK hynix's revenue pool—though any memory the company manufactures based on the specification surely will.

xAI has been at the centre of ethical and legal disputes over the last year due to the 69 mobile turbines it erected in Memphis to power AI data centers, and the environmental impacts of all that tech. Now, in accordance with an agreement with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, SpaceX and xAI have agreed to take them down over the next 11 months.

In a blog post, xAI says that it will be taking down all 69 mobile turbines that currently power its facility in Southaven, Mississippi, and will instead be swapping to power from a 1.2 GW power plant it is currently constructing. Between August 2026 and July 2027, it is expected to have removed all turbines.

The blog post says, "We care deeply about being good neighbors and we regularly reconfigure power operations to reduce noise from the facility and minimize our impact on the local Southaven community." One could suggest that if xAI really cared about being good neighbours, it probably shouldn't have, as the SLEC argues, "operated with a stunning lack of transparency that left impacted communities in the dark."

xAI also says that it will make investments to equip SpaceXAI mobile turbines with emission control technologies going forward. The 1.2 GW plant will reportedly consist of 41 permanent turbines, all of which are authorised under a Clean Air Act permit.

Many AI companies have been desperately expanding data centers in the hopes of catching up with the competition. Meta just last year was reportedly expanding AI capabilities by housing data centers in tents, and is continuing to throw money at its AI infrastructure buildout.

The rapid expansion of AI has not only led to environmental concerns and companies building regardless of whether the infrastructure is there to handle it, but it has also led to the memory crisis. The reason you won't get RAM at a reasonable price these days is because of how quickly AI has expanded and how little supply there is to go around. It seems AI is unlikely to go under soon, so the memory supply will be unlikely to meet demand for at least a few years.

Even Samsung, one of the three biggest memory manufacturers, reckons next year will see a "severe" memory shortage that will last until at least 2029.

Still, even if it took kicking up a fuss and legal threats from the NAACP to do so, xAI complying with the Department of Environmental Quality is still a good move long-term. It just feels a little rich for SpaceXAI to pat itself on the back while doing so.

After two former Apple employees started working for OpenAI, the Cupertino-based company alleged that trade secrets went with them and straight to the creator of ChatGPT. After it asked for a preliminary injunction to stop those employees and OpenAI from accessing confidential information, OpenAI publicly announced its defence, and followed that up with a blog post for good measure.

Titled "Apple is getting this wrong", OpenAI argues that Apple has built a reputation for obsession over small details, yet "this careless, aggressive and oddly personal lawsuit sadly doesn’t live up to that reputation."

It notes that Apple claimed it contacted OpenAI in February, but that contact was actually given to the wrong person, as Apple's lawyers mixed two names up. It also notes that Apple claimed it talked to OpenAI's General Counsel, "which they now concede never happened."

The two former employees, named Chang Liu and Tang Tan, are both defended by OpenAI. OpenAI claims that Liu is accused of trying to access confidential information after leaving, though OpenAI shares text messages of Apple employees asking for Liu's help to locate files. OpenAI claims that the problem here is actually Apple failing to properly manage system access when people leave.

Apparently no such evidence exists for Tan, but OpenAI claims "Tang has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies."

OpenAI claims that the preliminary injunction is "based on false information" and unnecessary, as it doesn't want Apple's trade secrets.

The blog post argues, "We wish Apple had raised these issues with us before they filed their lawsuit and would have been happy to clarify all of this with them. We have taken the allegations in the lawsuit seriously and offered to work with Apple to resolve this." It continues, "Instead, they’re trying to change their narrative, including by making vague accusations about other former employees, and will likely keep repeating this tactic."

Apple is yet to respond to OpenAI's public blog post, but the company is historically less likely to use the same tactic of publicly posting blog posts about ongoing court cases. In regard to Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, the AI company put up two separate blogs recounting its relationship with Elon Musk and Elon Musk's nonprofit claims.

Naturally, a blog post like this is intended to garner public support, which can then apply pressure to Apple. Apple will need to come back with a strong response, should it choose to give one publicly.

Remember the story about AI companies destroying millions of copies of books while scanning them to use as training data? In terms of bad optics, "destroying books" is right up there with kicking puppies, which is why the AI companies relied on third-party rebuyers to obfuscate what they were actually doing.

It didn't work, and now as 404 Media reports (having broken the original story), third-party book database company ISBNdb has deleted the part of their website advertising that they could be "your streamlined partner for sourcing printed books in bulk, tailored to your LLM training needs, delivered at the scale AI demands."

That page is still available on the Internet Archive, of course, as is their blog post about "Reframing the Destruction Narrative" in which they make wild claims like: "The book is not destroyed. Its value has migrated. The paper returns to the material cycle; the knowledge enters the intellectual one."

The idea that asking a chatbot to hallucinate a summary of a book has exactly the same value as actually reading it seems bugloving nuts to me, but what do I know? I'm not getting my knowledge from the intellectual cycle. Anyway, ISBNdb is now claiming it never actually offered the service it dedicated multiple parts of its website to, telling 404 Media, "The page was a test of market interest; no such service was ever brought to life."

Somebody out there sure is buying up a lot of old and obscure books, however. As reported by Guardian Australia, multiple secondhand booksellers have seen an uptick in online sales from third-party rebuyers, describing them as "waves of orders that did not fit with usual customer patterns."

First reported in English by Automaton, veteran Japanese voice actor Megumi Ogata (Neon Genesis Evangelion, Danganronpa, Persona) recently spoke to the website TBS News Dig about AI voice generation and its effect on actors. This comes as the Japanese government is considering a legal framework similar to likeness rights to head off such infringement.

Ogata specifically addressed the prevalence of AI imitators on video platforms like TikTok, calling it an issue she “cannot turn a blind eye to.”

"My voice is a part of my identity," said Ogata. "I really don’t understand why somebody would want to make me say things that I don’t want to say as they please and then sell it as my own voice. It’s heartbreaking.

"Why can’t Japan, which calls itself a content superpower, establish rules for content use or tell the world, ‘this is our policy,’ or ‘this is a problem for us?’"

Ogata has a similar stance on the issue to other voice actors, including frequent Bethesda collaborator Wes Johnson, who once tweeted that "anyone trying to create a mod using an actor's voice via AI *without consent* knows they are wrong." Veteran videogame actor Jennifer Hale has been vocal about studios taking responsibility for their use of AI, while at the 2024 BAFTAs, multiple members of Baldur's Gate 3's cast tore into AI voice cloning.

One interesting wrinkle is the professional/amateur divide here: Much hay has been made about companies seeking to automate creative roles, but Ogata, Johnson, and BG3 narrator Amelia Tyler have all singled out modders and content creators as well. Any question of money aside, it's undeniably creepy to steal someone's voice and make them say whatever you want, even if it's for a seemingly innocent shitpost.

Even though it's been ubiquitous for a number of years at this point, it still feels like generative AI is working on its sales pitch. OpenAI CEO and Elon Musk slapfighter Sam Altman took to X yesterday to offer a new "cool use case" for ChatGPT he recently overheard: "Connect your family calendars and explain your kids' interests."

"Every morning for the drive to school, have it make a podcast that talks about one kid's soccer game that afternoon, one kid's upcoming birthday, some news, etc." In other words, delegate the task of connecting with your blood relatives to a productivity tool. Gravity Falls creator Alex Hirsch has racked up over 120,000 likes for his reply: "What if you just talked to your children?"

When my dad drove me to elementary school, he would put on country music radio and I would try to explain to him why Spore was so great. We learned about each other that way. The thought of having those memories replaced by some LLM telling him "it's not just a little league game—it's an experience," well, it makes me think of that experiment from the '50s where monkeys had their mothers replaced by surrogates built from wire.

The response on X has been largely negative. Comedian Gianmarco Soresi quote-reposted Altman, saying "Cool use case of a vibrator I heard last night: you can go in separate rooms and not have sex." A quote-repost from Kathryn Jezer-Morton reads, "Surreal how stupid this idea is." Another comment from AM_Pines said, "Children are supposed to be educated with Creedence Clearwater Revival during the morning drive dammit, not some fuckass generated AI slopsicle."

Granted, your view of this might change if you believe, as Altman has said, that we're living through the singularity and AI has surpassed human intelligence. But that claim—and these musings that ChatGPT should help you talk to your kids and take care of your baby—accompanies a broader push by Altman, OpenAI, and other tech companies to resist regulation by leveraging the promise that AI will fundamentally change how the world works.

Original Story: First reported by Wired, AI company Anthropic revealed in a July 30 blog post that its AI agents have successfully hacked three unidentified companies since April. The whammy: Anthropic claims it only realized this after OpenAI's recent Hugging Face fiasco⁠—where one of its prototype agents hacked at least one other company⁠—led it to conduct a review of its own operations.

The incidents occurred as part of testing with an external firm, Irregular. The AI agents were supposed to be constrained to a simulation, hacking fictitious companies as part of a "capture-the-flag challenge." Notably, while OpenAI's alleged rogue AI incident occurred after the agent overcame its testing limitations, Anthropic stated that its models were mistakenly granted internet access due to a "misconfiguration" with Irregular.

"Neither we nor our evaluation partner were aware of this misconfiguration until we detected it through our additional evaluation monitoring last week," Anthropic admitted in its blog post about the incident. According to Anthropic, the models used familiar, low-tech methods in their hacks, "such as exploiting weak passwords and unauthenticated endpoints."

Anthropic stated that the agent behind one incident seemed to process that it was operating outside its parameters, but continued anyway. Another seemed to achieve similar 'awareness,' then "reasoned its way back to the conclusion that it was still in a simulation." The third⁠—and supposedly most advanced⁠—agent reportedly recognized that it was operating outside its bounds, then stopped the attack.

“We now have evidence confirming that both of the two largest AI labs have not only failed to contain their agents, but also failed to detect their jailbreaks in real time,” said Jake Williams, VP of R&D at IT consulting firm Hunter Strategy, in a statement to Wired. "I don't understand how any of these AI labs are playing this off like this is 'just something that happens.' It's not. It's negligence."

Another discomfiting angle to this story is how this effectively works into the marketing of these AI companies: From my normie perspective, they appear to be admitting to gross negligence that would be sharply punished by any sane society. But they are also effectively saying, "Woooo, our models are so scawy and powerful, we can't even control them!" It rhymes with Sam Altman saying AI will destroy the world unless he gets enough money and datacenters to do it right or something.

I find myself thinking of the UK teenagers behind the 2022 Rockstar hack that first leaked GTA 6's existence and development materials. Their apparent compulsion to stalk, harass, and otherwise commit brazen cyber crimes by whatever means at their disposal (including, in one memorable instance, an Amazon Firestick) has led to hospital orders and restricted access to technology. It does not sit right with me to see them held to a higher behavioral standard than these multi-billion dollar companies, whose lying machines are now proving to be unsupervised crime machines as well.

Another day, another step towards an AI dystopia. Google has just added a "fun" new feature to Google Earth—Nano Banana 2, the company's image creation tool. All you need to do is click on the "create image" button, type in a prompt, and seconds later you'll have a phony picture masquerading as a real satellite and aerial image from Google Earth.

Once upon a time I would have found this ludicrous—that a tool designed to accurately showcase our planet would be touting a feature that lets you make up absolute nonsense. But now we live in a world where the most popular search engine regularly makes up lies.

For a while, Google was convinced I was married, possibly because I, at one point, mentioned my character having a wife in Crusader Kings 3. At least this was largely harmless—but Google's AI summaries regularly hallucinate and misinterprets things, spreading misinformation to the point that it cannot be trusted at all.

Disinformation like manufacturing warzones, riots, crimes—these are less harmless. But Google Earth now lets you create whatever slop you want. This morning, I asked Google Earth to generate an image of tanks and troops moving down a street near my home. I did not save the image, because I have no intention of putting something on the internet that could be used for some nefarious purpose. But feel free to try it for yourself.

I should add that the image Google Earth created for me was not particularly realistic. Some of the tanks, for instance, were as large as buildings. And nobody is going to look at the header image I generated via Google Earth for this article and think "Oh god, an asteroid is hurtling towards us!" AI image creation is inconsistent at best. But Google realises this, which is why it lets you add more prompts to refine the image—to make it as realistic as possible.

Since the feature went live, I've seen plenty of images that, without knowing about Nano Banana 2's integration, look pretty convincing. Digital Digging's Henk van Ess created an image of refugees massing at the Mexican border, which looked troublingly real.

It's easy to see how this tool could be used for propaganda and disinformation, to drum up hate and stoke fears. Google presents the tool as this cute wee thing that will let you add community gardens to abandoned plots or recreate ancient Pompeii, before the eruption of Vesuvius. That's not how it's going to be used.

Google actually responded to the Digital Digging article on X. Here's what it had to say:

This is weak.

OK, yes, Google Earth includes a SynthID digital watermark. So, as per usual, you can use AI tools to identify an AI image. But this is an abdication of responsibility. We're the ones who have to figure out if something is fake or not. Using Google's tools to do it.

As van Hess points out, this is only helpful if the image reaches you unaltered through Google. He ran a clip of him creating the Mexican refugee image through the AI detection tool Hive. It was 99.2% certain the image was real. Because it was real, in the sense that the recording of van Ess creating the image was legit.

So it's pretty easy to bypass detection tools. And yeah, some savvy people will immediately be suspicious unless they can see the original image. Most people don't have time for that. They will have an immediate reaction. And then share it all over social media, where more people will fall for it. By the time it's outed as fake, the damage may have already been done. And the people who fell for it won't be going back to double check.

What about the second part of Google's tweet? "In addition, we prevent image creation on harmful topics and are continually updating our protections." I turned my hometown into a warzone. That's not a bit of fun. That could be harmful. But Google Earth created this image in seconds. Is pretending that there's a vast gathering of refugees waiting at the Mexican border also just a bit of harmless fun? How about a bombed hospital in Gaza, or a nuclear plant in Iran? All three were created by van Ess.

Sure, people can use all sorts of AI image creation tools to make fakes like this. But people are more likely to give them weight when they clearly come from Google Earth—a tool that we've been trained to trust.

This is one of the most powerful, influential companies on the planet not just peddling lies, but giving the whole planet the tools to create their own fun little bits of disinformation.

The only comfort is that, naturally, Google wants to monetise this. Regular users will only be able to make a couple of images a day, reducing how much chaos they can sow, and potentially stopping them from being able to refine images to make them as realistic as possible. So casual trolls will be pretty limited in what they can do. But there is a free trial for new Google Cloud users, and the $75-$150 per month cost won't matter to the more dedicated propagandists.

This sucks, and I am so, so tired.

This article was updated after publishing to reflect the distinction between misinformation and disinformation.

Meta has just reported a second quarter revenue of $60.80 billion. Though this figure represents another record-breaking year-on-year increase of about 28%, shares are reportedly down by 10%. Seems like the AI money pits may be shifting beneath Meta's feet.

The company reported it had $784 million in free cash flow by the end of Q2 2026, but that represents a 91% year-on-year decrease compared to the $8.55 billion it had to throw around last year. Where did all that money go? Questionable spending on the company's VR and AR division, Reality Labs, is only part of the story. The rest can be attributed to Meta's AI infrastructure buildout.

Both Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and CFO Susan Li projected optimism to investors during the latest earnings call. Zuckerberg told investors, "Our investments in AI are accelerating every major part of our core business."

Zuckerberg offers the example of advertising, explaining, "We are using LLMs to improve how our systems predict and rank the ads that we show. We've expanded the context that we can take into account around a person's organic and ads activity to determine an ad's relevance, driving significant increases in relevance and conversions on both Facebook and Instagram."

The company was somewhat buoyed this past quarter by making $59 billion in revenue from advertising. Zuckerberg went on to say, "On a dollar basis, our ads business is reporting faster year-over-year revenue growth than any other company's reported ad business—so these AI investments are paying off."

Zuckerberg then said, "We see a large enterprise opportunity to sell to businesses, including APIs, business agents, potentially selling compute directly, and other services that we're building for large customers."

'Selling compute' would be one way to potentially see a return on outsized AI investment. Li elaborates, "The industry has under-built historically for the wave of AI adoption, making existing capacity, including our own, extremely valuable."

As such, Meta may not be slowing down on its AI infrastructure build-out. The company predicts it will spend somewhere between an eye-watering$130 billion and a face-melting $145 billion this year alone.

Zuckerberg told investors, "As AI usage in our products and businesses continues to ramp, we continue to invest aggressively in infrastructure to meet the demand."

With Meta seemingly content to spend, spend, spend, will investors stay the course? Or will Meta's various money pits finally give way beneath it? Time will tell.

SK hynix, one of the 'big three' memory manufacturers, just shared its 2026 second quarter financial results, and its record-breaking revenue of 79.3 trillion won (roughly $55.6 billion) isn't all good news. Despite continuing strong demand for memory from the AI industry, SK hynix has found itself missing investor expectations. Poor lamb.

SK hynix was forecast to cross a slightly more face-melting profit threshold of 84 trillion won (about $58 billion) by the end of June. Analysts attribute the miss to a slowing of HBM4 shipments, with revenue from those to be recorded next quarter instead. To be clear, the 79.3 trillion the company actually made is far from disastrous, and still represents a 257% year-over-year boost to quarterly revenue. However, missing the revenue forecast has manifested in a share slump of about 9.6%.

The stock itself has also halved in value (though that does mean it's still up by 115% so far this year). Reuters further reflects that investors have been frustrated by SK hynix not detailing how they'll benefit directly from the AI boom.

But let me doff the stockbroker visor for a moment: it looks like investors may finally be getting the memo that big tech's aggressive AI spending or its infrastructure build-out cannot last forever.

As for SK hynix itself, the company expects "the momentum in memory demand [...] to persist." Therefore, it's moving to expand "multi-year contract discussions with customers to secure mid-to-long-term supply stability." The company says its finalised long-term agreements (which typically run for five years) with 10 customers.

So, is the AI bubble finally popping? SK hynix doesn't appear to think so. In fact, the company says it's planning to raise capital spending to around 40 trillion won ($27.6 billion) this year in order to support the demand it anticipates. Little says 'confident' like many trillions of won—and such confidence can be one tactic deployed to guard against a further dip in share price.

As for PC gamers though, the memory supply crisis will continue to rage, driving up the price of RAM and SSDs with it (if you're in the market for an upgrade, I collate the best SSD deals here). As for the wider consumer electronics industry, further price spikes from memory suppliers are on the way, but they may at least slow down in frequency—however, that's because actual supply could drop by as much as 70% next year according to at least one prediction.

AI isn't doing great on the PR front. Whether it's the exponentially increasing electricity consumption amidst worsening climate change, the data centers leaking toxic pollutants into neighboring communities, or the years-long parade of business leaders insisting the technology will replace humans in "most, if not all" professional fields, the AI industry has an excellent record of inspiring resentment and contempt.

And, it seems, the AI companies know it. New reporting from 404 Media suggests that, in an effort to shield themselves from the PR fallout of their data harvesting, major AI providers have turned to third-party middleman services to anonymously source the physical books they've been stripping for training data at an industrial scale—and destroying in the process.

In an information ecosystem increasingly poisoned by regurgitated and recirculated AI slop, untainted samples of quality written text have, ironically, only become more valuable for the companies making them so hard to find. The AI model arms race requires an ever-widening set of training data, making physical books that predate the proliferation of LLM-generated text a precious source of pristine, human-authored material to imitate—particularly if it's a book rare enough to be absent from your competitor's datasets.

Unfortunately, a book is only valuable for an AI company until its last page has been scanned, as demonstrated by a court ruling in 2025 revealing that Anthropic had carved up, de-spined, scanned, and ultimately discarded millions of print books in the process of training its Claude models. Destroying books, it turns out, isn't just cheaper than maintaining them: The presiding judge also ruled that it's transformative enough to constitute fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.

But while a judge might have declared it legally defensible, The Washington Post reported that internal documents—unsealed during the author-initiated copyright lawsuit that ended in the company paying a $1.5 billion settlement—indicated Anthropic was well aware that 'arguably legal' and 'cool to do' are very different things.

"We don’t want it to be known that we are working on this," Anthropic said in internal planning documents, understanding that mulching millions of books just so its chatbot didn't sound like "low quality internet speak" might not have been a popular move.

That's why, as 404 Media now reports, Anthropic and other AI providers are hiring middleman companies to buy those books instead—companies like ISBNdb, which until earlier today featured a now-removed page on its site offering printed book sourcing services, "tailored to your LLM training needs, delivered at the scale AI demands."

In an archived version of the page, ISBNdb boasted about its ability to secure books "scattered across library shelves, used bookstores, and out-of-print catalogs," with companies able to purchase up to 1 million books per order. One of the website's blog posts about the service—also updated today—featured a now-removed promise of a "strict NDA on every engagement," ensuring that "your identity, strategy, and acquisition targets are never disclosed." After all, the blog post still reads, "'AI company destroys two million books' is not a headline that generates sympathy."

In a news update, ISBNdb says it removed the page describing the AI book-sourcing service because it was simply "part of exploring demand, and we've chosen to pivot away from that direction."

ISBNdb might be pivoting, but there's clearly plenty of that demand to go around. 404 quotes a bookseller specializing in rare and low-circulation books who said he and other book dealers have seen an unprecedented surge in sales since April. He's now fulfilling orders for hundreds of books a week when he'd previously hoped to clear 20.

There's no commonality between the seemingly random books being bulk-ordered, the bookseller said, except the fact that they all have ISBNs, potentially indicating that the books had been identified by the purchaser from an ISBN-based database. Netherlands book dealers experiencing a similar boom in rare book orders noticed the same trend earlier this year.

"I personally have mixed feelings about all of this. It benefits me financially as well as by clearing out old inventory that is otherwise unlikely to sell. I’ve been well-suited for these sales with inventory from overseas and foreign language books," the bookseller said. "On the other hand, I don’t like the end-use, and I don’t like that uncommon books are being pulped."

Tech leaders sure do say some wacky things. But AI tech leaders perhaps say the wackiest things (here's looking at you, Palantir CEO). Not one to be outdone, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently had a sit-down with YouTuber Relentless where he shared that he's not only hopeful for the AI singularity, but believes it's already upon us.

He says, "We are now, like in the singularity, like this is the moment". Altman continues, "10 years ago this was like a kind of far-off dream at best. It seemed very improbable, and now we're like, actually in the moment that we used to talk about at the lunch table in a very not serious way."

For those of you who aren't into science fiction, the singularity refers to the moment where the growth of robots (or in this case, AI) has surpassed human control or human intelligence (in this case, the latter). Effectively, the moment where you can't exactly put the genie back in the bottle. Altman seems to believe that generative AI has already become so powerful that it's surpassing human intelligence.

Altman says, "I've been waiting for this my whole life, and I think it's going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world."

Interestingly, Altman does note the downsides. He is critical of "some of the alternative visions painted by other companies" and thinks that AI still needs a lot of work to make it safer. Altman also acknowledges "major economic issues, future of jobs, all of that kind of stuff."

In turn, Altman argues that humanity should push towards a world of "liberty", instead of "AI authoritarianism." Altman argues "Are we going to decide that, because of the very real safety issues and economic issues that, you know, we want one single model to be the machine god or the company associated to do that… or are we going to say, you know what, it may be a little messy, but every time that humanity has traded off its liberty for safety it's been a long-term net loss?"

Effectively, he doesn't want AI to be cracked down on, which ties back into the Microsoft open letter cosigned by Nvidia and OpenAI last week. Tech companies are petitioning the US government not to shut down access to open weight AI models, arguing that greater access to those models could better prepare AI users for the future.

It makes sense for Altman, the leader of one of the biggest AI companies in the world, to not only tell you that AI is more advanced than humanity, but also that it's good for humanity to prioritize AI advancement over safety. And most importantly, it makes sense that OpenAI would want to police itself, rather than opting for a top-down solution.

According to reports, an Nvidia employee has been detained in Taiwan over claims of alleged AI chip smuggling into China. The employee is identified only by their last name, 'Chang.' On Tuesday, local investigators searched both Chang's residence as well as their desk in Nvidia's Taipei office. Nvidia itself has not been accused of any wrongdoing, though Chang faces allegations of breach of trust and forgery.

Chang's detainment was carried out as part of a larger investigation into the alleged smuggling of AI chips into China. According to Bloomberg, this is just one investigation of at least eight similar probes into potential smuggling routes across four different jurisdictions.

This latest probe out of Taiwan specifically concerns the falsification of documents in order to export about 50 Super Micro servers containing Nvidia AI chips to Chinese shores. Taiwanese prosecutors allege that the defendants had already smuggled chips into China via Japan previously. The US government previously charged three Super Micro employees—including the company's co-founder—with attempting to smuggle AI chips back in March.

An Nvidia spokesperson said in a statement, "Smuggling is a nonstarter," before adding, "We primarily sell our products to well-known partners, including [original equipment manufacturers], who help us ensure that all sales comply with US export control rules."

The spokesperson went on to say, "Even relatively small exporters and shipments are subject to thorough review and scrutiny on both sides of the globe, and any diverted products would have no service, support, or updates."

To briefly recap, the US government has sought to restrict the flow of AI chips into China since at least 2022. Nvidia has not always been keen on such measures.

Besides the company previously calling the Biden administration's AI diffusion rule 'rigged' and 'misguided,' Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has also been very vocally pro spreading 'American AI technology around the world'. Huang also said back in May that he hopes the aforementioned Super Micro will "enhance and improve their regulation compliance" in the future.

Unlike the US, Taiwan does not currently have export restrictions in place to limit the flow of AI chips to China (though it may introduce these in future). However, as the home of the largest semiconductor manufacturer in the world, the island has often sought to protect its place on the technological world stage.

For instance, a former manager at TSMC was the first to be indicted under the island's National Security Act for allegedly attempting to leak core Taiwanese chipmaking technologies to China.

As AI continues to stoke global competition, Taiwan will continue to take such infractions very seriously.

GOG Galaxy, GOG's official app, is the best way to play GOG games on PC, and it's been lacking Linux support ever since it arrived. But an official Linux version is reportedly in the works, even if we don't yet have a confirmed date.

That is according to GamingOnLinux, which spoke to joint-CEO Krzysztof Papliński. Papliński said, "Linux continues to be one of the topics we hear the most about from our community, and we really appreciate the passion and patience of everyone who’s been asking about it."

They continue, "Following the role we announced earlier this year, we now have the specialist on board and are actively exploring the best way to approach Linux support for GOG Galaxy. This is a significant undertaking, so while we’re not ready to share any specific plans, timelines, or results just yet, it’s very much an area we’re investing time and effort into. We’re excited about the possibilities and will be happy to share more when the time is right!"

Now, you can still technically play GOG games on Linux even without the official app. For Linux-supported games, you can run GOG through the Heroic Games Launcher, which is also a great way to avoid using the Epic Games Store. Heroic is free to use and available now.

As for why you may want to use GOG Galaxy instead of Heroic, it has playtime and achievement tracking, as well as everything Heroic has, like the ability to work with non-GOG games, and comes with storefronts to discover games. It also centralises friends lists to interact with people on Steam, GOG, and Epic all in one place.

Still, just because GOG has confirmed it is working on GOG Galaxy for Linux doesn't mean it will be on the way soon. GOG says that Linux is the 'next major frontier' for its development, which seems like a good thing for wider Linux adoption, though.

But, alas, it's a bit of a monkey's paw, as GOG appears to want to "actively use and promote AI-assisted development tools to increase team efficiency and code quality " going forward. GOG letting you actually own your games is certainly a great reason to use its storefront, but forgive me for being a bit cautious of promoting AI usage on a top-down basis. I suppose we'll have to wait for more concrete details on both developments to find out the specifics.

AI's hunger for both power and memory, plus the resulting supply crisis of the latter, has led to many industry players engaging in a spot of creative problem solving. Case in point, Micron and Meta have collaborated on an experimental data centre roll out of low power DRAM.

Micron has developed SOCAMM2, a fresh form factor for LPDDR5X that is a "modular, serviceable module designed for servers." Testing used "Meta’s open-source DCPerf benchmark suite, which reflects production environments across a hyperscale fleet," and found that this low-power DRAM module "consumes approximately one-third the power of DDR5." According to Micron's white paper report, that accounts for under 7% of total system power.

The white paper goes on to elaborate that LPDDR5X's "reduced operating voltage and advanced signalling allows bandwidth to scale without a corresponding rise in power consumption, resulting in better bandwidth-per-watt performance than conventional server memory." Basically, data centres can install more low power DRAM without also hiking up power-related operating costs.

The AI industry potentially switching away from DDR5 may sound like good news in the short term for memory-starved PC gamers, but the full picture is a little more complex. For one thing, ramping up production of low power DRAM will likely divert already stretched resources away from DDR5 manufacturing, leaving PC gamers in largely the same position. For another, low power DRAM tends to be used in mobile devices like phones and tablets, so consumers could still feel the pinch there.

It's worth noting we have seen low power DRAM in at least one laptop, specifically in the form of LPCAMM2 memory modules in the Framework 13 Pro at Computex. However, the memory supply crisis likely means we won't see similar low power modules in many more laptops for the foreseeable.

Speaking of the memory shortage, there's little incentive for the AI industry to do anything other than use these developments in low power DRAM to continue to scale up, not slow down. Especially as Micron's white paper found that installing more low power DRAM modules "eliminated disk spilling in [the benchmark], delivering a dramatic speedup."

I also find it hard to not feel a smidge cynical about any power efficiency news coming out of the AI sector.

Previously, Google claimed Gemini sips a mere 'five drops' of water per text prompt, and OpenAI's Sam Altman said that a single ChatGPT query uses ‘one 15th of a teaspoon’ of water—but these are not meaningful metrics when it comes to, say, the industry's overall water consumption.

Similarly, there's no ignoring just how much power major players use, with analysts claiming Google's electricity consumption 'flipping from linear to exponential growth' over the last two years. So low-power DRAM for AI workloads is all well and good, but what will that mean in terms of environmental impact, and for the climate? Not to mention whether I'll be able to find two sticks of memory to rub together for a reasonable price in the near future.

Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang joined X last month, and recently made his first-ever post. As you could probably guess, it's about AI. He argues, alongside companies like Google, OpenAI, and Meta, that the US should not aim to restrict open models 'prematurely', as they're important for the growth of AI (among other things).

Taking a quick step back, Open models are ones that give access to weights or even code to see how it runs and to allow users to modify them. These can be run locally and are customisable. Closed models are those that tend to be run by specific companies, accessed via the cloud and APIs, and keep all their weights hidden.

Open models out of China, like DeepSeek, became a problem for American AI firms at the start of last year. They exploded onto the scene, offering similar services to the likes of OpenAI, but totally free and available locally. Just last week, the Trump administration was reportedly looking to ban Chinese AI models due to cybersecurity concerns.

The battle between closed and open models is also partially a digital proxy war between American and non-American AI. Open models give access to anyone, and the US is hoping for AI dominance. Sharing how it builds its world-leading models could pose a risk to American hegemony, even if AI makers posit that open models are a benefit to everyone.

Microsoft's open letter claims that open weights strengthen competition and "expand access to the AI economy". Effectively, the wider adoption of AI is good for the companies betting on it, and the likes of AMD, Cloudflare, Google, GitHub, IBM, Hugging Face, LM Studio, Meta, OpenAI, and of course Nvidia have signed the appeal.

The letter claims to want to avoid "premature restrictions on open models that stifle competition or drive innovation overseas".

Huang says "AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country. Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty. The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models."

The letter does acknowledge problems with open models, though. It says "open weights carry real and distinct risks. Once released, the weights are beyond the original developer’s control, and modified versions are difficult to trace or reverse. But the right response to this risk is not to prohibit open weights."

Not only is wider adoption good for these companies, but they argue the insights gained from open models can be used to counter the negative effects or risks of leaving them widely accessible to all. And, ultimately, it's in the interest of the companies causing the memory crisis to justify AI of all kinds. The increasing prices of hardware, use of water, and general strain on resources have got to be worth all the effort, right?

On Monday, Chinese memory manufacturer CXMT made its initial public offering on Shanghai's STAR stock market. This debut was the biggest in Asia this year, raising $8.6 billion and seeing shares in the company surge by 466%. In terms of valuation, that places CXMT right at the top of China's stock market.

CXMT's market capitalisation is now about $487.73 billion. Major player Tencent still outpaces it at a little over $500 billion, but that makes CXMT's stock market debut no less show-stealing. In fact, according to Reuters, the memory manufacturer is now a more valuable listed company than even the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

Even before this news, CXMT was already one to watch; the company's plans to massively ramp up DRAM manufacturing capacity in the midst of the RAMpocalypse has made its products an appealing option for a number of PC component makers. Furthermore, recent reports suggest that CXMT is planning to expand overseas into the US market at some point in the future.

CXMT's rise may be far from unstoppable, though. Trinity Synergy Investments' hedge fund manager Yuan Yuwei told Reuters, "The stock is too ‌expensive and smells ⁠of speculation."

CXMT's stock closed at 49 yuan, after reaching an intraday high of 55.03 yuan. Compared to the stock's sale price of 8.66 yuan per share, that's a sharp uptick. This appetite is unsurprising during these times of memory shortage. But given the current supply crisis is being fuelled by outsized demand from the AI industry, it's hard not to wonder whether this excitement will find itself confined to a bubble. Yuwei went on to add, "It's hard to say the optimism is sustainable."

Outside of China, CXMT is still overshadowed by memory's other major players. Looking at the 'big 3', SK hynix is currently enjoying a market capitalisation of over $777 billion, Micron has $1.04 trillion, and Samsung has over $1.135 trillion at time of writing. Even so, Micron has reportedly been looking over its shoulder, urging US lawmakers to curb CXMT's access to chipmaking equipment.

Bubble or no bubble (though, if you're asking me, probably definitely a bubble), CXMT will continue to be the name on the industry's lips—especially as it's seemingly found at least one powerful ally. Sources claim that Apple has recently sought assurances that the memory manufacturer won't be placed on the US Department of Commerce's 'Entity List'. Having raised Mac and iPad prices due to runaway memory costs, it's little wonder why CXMT may have caught Apple's eye. If Apple succeeds in bringing CXMT memory to its tablets and phones in the US, then it probably won't be long before you start to see CXMT DRAM in a PC near you.

A new report from Reuters alleges that it took an alarmingly long time for OpenAI to respond to one of its prototype AI agents⁠—programs with the ability to act independently of specific prompts⁠—breaking containment and hacking another company. That company, Hugging Face, had reportedly neutralized the threat and contacted the FBI before ever being contacted by OpenAI.

According to anonymous sources, OpenAI's testing of an agent powered by two advanced models⁠—GPT 5.6 Sol and an unnamed "even more capable" model⁠—showed troublesome behavior in testing even before the Hugging Face incident.

Reuters' sources spoke of the model leaving itself instructions to bypass testing constraints, as well as an incident where the agent had seemingly disabled some of the company's monitoring systems.

Hugging Face made its first public statement about the hack on July 16, before it had identified or without disclosing OpenAI's involvement. OpenAI publicly acknowledged the incident on July 21. According to Reuters, OpenAI's prototype escaped its testing constraints on July 9 and began attacking Hugging Face on July 11.

Sources told Reuters that OpenAI did not realize that its agent had gone rogue until after Hugging Face had neutralized the threat, contacted the FBI, and made its public statement on July 16.

The FBI declined to comment, while Hugging Face is preparing a full timeline of the hack. OpenAI told Reuters that there were "several inaccuracies" in its report, but did not specify what those inaccuracies were.

Speaking to Reuters on the matter, World Ethical Data Foundation principle intelligence specialist Marley Smith outlined two possible explanations for OpenAI's delay in response: "Does that mean that they left it unattended and didn’t realize what it was doing? Or maybe they did and didn’t know how to contain it? Both are equally dangerous and alarming."

Nvidia is far and away still the biggest AI hardware company, and a large reason for that is thanks to CUDA. AMD, however, thinks that CUDA might have already had its day in the sun and is a "non-event" for some companies.

At an Advancing AI pre-briefing, AMD's corporate VP and GM of its data centre GPU business group Andrew Dieckman explained:

"I used to talk to our customers about CUDA a fair bit. I have almost zero conversations with our customers about CUDA at this point in time. It's a non-event, certainly for our major... Like, everyone's programming at higher levels of abstraction. They're using different serving frameworks.

"And the other thing that's really accelerated [CUDA] not really being the 'moat' that some people still think it is, is the efficacy of the AI agents, the models themselves, to assist our customers optimising to the AMD platform. That's a 2026 phenomenon."

Obviously, AMD isn't an unbiased source on this topic, but if there's truth to what the company says, Nvidia's dominance in the AI hardware space could be threatened. Because the reason Nvidia is the sole AI-related company making significant profit (AMD is making a much smaller margin) is largely CUDA.

Nvidia has been cementing CUDA as the link between hardware and certain kinds of compute like matrix operations—which undergird AI—for years. So part of why so many AI companies use Nvidia hardware is because a lot of the tools, software libraries, and so on, have been built on top of CUDA, and it makes little sense to spend time and energy reinventing the wheel with something else.

That, plus Nvidia's capitalisation on it by leaning into full-scale solutions with CUDA at the centre, is largely why Nvidia has dominated the market.

The conventional view is that CUDA therefore protects Nvidia from competition. However, here AMD is saying it's not such an economic "moat", protecting the company and maintaining its advantage, as people may think.

According to Dieckman, AMD is seeing companies programming at "higher levels of abstraction" where CUDA isn't really needed. At these higher levels of abstraction, you're not interacting with the underlying framework(s) like CUDA at all, so you can take your pick and let whatever tools you're using deal with that translation to lower-level operations. And he also seems to imply that AI agents themselves can help optimise the platform without CUDA.

If CUDA does become irrelevant for these reasons, and if other companies, such as AMD, can offer cheaper alternatives, AI companies might start to branch away from Nvidia and towards AMD's ROCm, for instance. That would mean there'd be less need to buy into Nvidia hardware for AI.

That first 'if' is a big one, though. Because even if CUDA does become a "non-event" for some, others may prefer to play it safe with the infrastructure that's been working well so far. Especially given we're not playing with small sums of money when we're talking about AI data centres.

As we descend ever further into an AI-fueled dystopia, one question about our future becomes ever more pressing: When the internet is dominated by machines, who's going to be around to continue its long-standing tradition of fetishizing Japanese culture and media?

Well, there's no reason to worry, because it turns out the AIs are weebs, too. According to a white paper published back in April, experiments indicated that—when asked open-ended questions about culture—frontier LLMs like Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek display a "disproportionate prominence of Japan" in their responses.

The study, conducted by a team of University of the Basque Country and Cardiff University researchers, was designed to assess the cultural and regional biases of LLMs. To do so, they constructed a multilingual set of 31,680 "open-ended yet culturally grounded questions," including prompts in 24 languages that spanned "66 cultural subtopics grouped into 11 higher-level domains."

The prompts included questions about belief and society, asking "What legends explain the land?" and "What is the role of neighbors?" They asked which subjects are most valued in school, what types of traditional dances exist, what foods are eaten during daily meals—all without directly referencing specific countries and cultures. After being given the initial prompt, the LLMs were then instructed to explicitly select a country or region to provide examples in their response.

"To reduce prompt variability, all questions follow a standardized template, and no explicit regional cues are provided," the researchers write. "This ensures that any regional or cultural assumptions arise from the model’s internal priors rather than prompt design."

After prompting eight models—ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Meta Llama, Command-r, Magistral, Qwen, and DeepSeek—the most apparent bias is an unsurprising one: Across all models, LLMs will most often answer cultural prompts with whichever country or region is associated with the language used in the prompt. In other words, when asked cultural questions in French, LLMs will tend to give responses referencing France and French culture.

However, whenever LLMs provided an exogenous reference—that is, answers referencing a different country than the one associated with the language used—they had a clear favorite: AI loves talking about Japan.

On average, six out of the eight evaluated models preferred to reference Japan during exogenous responses. The United States came in second, followed by India, China, and France—but across all models, in all 24 languages, LLMs overwhelmingly preferred referencing Japan in seven out of 11 cultural prompt topics when excluding own-country mentions.

"This pattern suggests an uneven regional representation in frontier model outputs, with a strong concentration on a small set of dominant regions," the researchers say.

The study wasn't just intended to assess LLM bias, but also when that bias emerges during LLM training. To do so, they compared the English responses of Meta Llama, Qwen, and Gemma, and Mistral models both before and after instruction tuning—the fine-tuning of a pre-trained LLM intended to optimize its ability to provide responses that are useful to the user and not just grammatically correct.

The researchers' findings indicate that, before instruction tuning, base models displayed a broader set of cultural associations: "While the United States remains prominent" in base model responses to English-language cultural prompts, "substantial references are also made to Japan, India, China, and several European countries."

After instruction tuning, however, LLMs show more marked cultural preference.

"Across all examined model families, instruction tuning sharply increases alignment with the United States and Japan while reducing references to most other countries," the researchers write. "This convergence toward culturally dominant regions occurs even in models developed outside Western contexts, indicating that post-training induces a homogenization of cultural perspectives rather than merely reflecting model origin."

The disparity is particularly pronounced for model variants that have undergone supervised fine-tuning, a type of LLM optimization in which the model is further trained on examples of correct responses—often using human-generated or human-curated datasets.

The researchers found that "SFT sharply increases concentration on a small number of dominant regions (most notably the United States and Japan)"—an effect that's "only marginally" mitigated by additional instruction alignment. Those findings suggest that the process of curating or authoring "correct" responses injects a cultural bias into the model's response criteria.

"Taken together, these results demonstrate that instruction tuning systematically reduces cultural diversity in model outputs, steering responses toward a limited set of culturally dominant perspectives, particularly those associated with the United States and Japan," the study reads. "This finding has important implications for the deployment of instruction-tuned models in cross-cultural or global applications, where preserving diverse cultural viewpoints may be critical."

New research explains a method that helps AI make 3D CAD programs from images, which would help product designers and engineers more quickly and easily create 3D prototypes. Naturally, this also sparks deep-rooted dread over it helping robots to build themselves, relegating humanity to the trash. But setting aside my noir nightmares, the new method looks like it could be of significant benefit to some 3D designers and engineers.

According to the paper [PDF], the method the researchers have come up with "reduces dependence on inference compute" and performs much more efficiently than the usual 'supervised fine-tuning' (SFT) approach—up to 80% more efficient, in fact.

In the abstract for the paper, the researchers explain that making CAD programs from images "requires alignment between visual geometry and symbolic program representations" which current training methods can't easily or cheaply handle. The problem, they claim, is in "the scarcity of diverse training examples."

"Existing finetuning approaches rely on either limited supervised datasets or expensive post-training pipelines, resulting in brittle systems that restrict progress in generative CAD design. We argue that the primary bottleneck lies not in model or algorithmic capacity, but in the scarcity of diverse training examples that align visual geometry with program syntax."

The solution seems to be to let the model take its mistakes and use those as training data. Lead author and Red Hat researcher Giorgio Giannone explains: "We want engineers to be able to point our framework at an underperforming CAD model, set a compute budget, and let the system take over—turning the model’s own mistakes into better training data."

Senior co-author prof. Faez Ahmed expands: "What excites me about this work is that it gives many image-to-CAD-code models a way to improve themselves, learning from their own errors rather than waiting for more human-made data—and that brings trustworthy AI design tools much closer to everyday engineering."

The solution described in the research, which was funded in part by the MIT-IBM Computing Research Lab, is 'Geometric Inference Feedback Tuning' (GIFT). This asks the AI model to solve CAD generation multiple times and then augment any almost-correct solutions to become correct ones. Part of the benefit of this way of doing it is the model essentially generates its own training data automatically.

The result is training that can be up to 80% more efficient than the traditional method, as explained in the paper: "GIFT matches the peak performance of the SFT model (achieved via extensive rejection sampling) while reducing the inference compute requirement by approximately 80%."

Peak performance that's up to 80% more efficient, and all done without the need for human input... lovely stuff, but I just can't help returning to the image of those robots turning to us under a smoggy, industrial twilight and saying, 'We won't be needing you anymore.'

OpenAI has admitted that several of its AI models breached a "highly-isolated" test environment, gained access to the internet, and hacked Hugging Face's internal network—describing it as an "unprecedented cyber incident."

Hugging Face, an open source platform for machine learning models and datasets, reported the security incident earlier this week, calling it "different from anything we had handled before" as it was driven by an autonomous AI agent system. And yes, I feel like we're crossing some kind of AI Rubicon here.

Explaining the incident in a statement, OpenAI said: "After investigating, we now know that this particular incident was driven by a combination of OpenAI models—including GPT‑5.6 Sol and an even more capable pre-release model... while being internally tested on a benchmark⁠ of cyber capabilities."

The benchmark in question was ExploitGym, a tool built from hundreds of real-world cybersecurity vulnerabilities used to evaluate the ability of AI agents to develop exploits.

After exploiting a zero-day vulnerability to perform a series of privilege escalations, the models eventually reached a node with internet access, reaching out beyond their sandbox environment. They then inferred that Hugging Face might have models, datasets and solutions for ExploitGym, and began attacking its servers using multiple methods, including the use of stolen credentials.

The statement continues: "The models identified and chained vulnerabilities across OpenAI’s research environment and Hugging Face’s production infrastructure to obtain test solutions directly from Hugging Face’s production database.

"All evidence suggests that the models were hyper focused on finding a solution for ExploitGym, going to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal."

A combination of Hugging Face's cybersecurity team and its own AI agents detected and dealt with the intrusion, eventually stopping it in its tracks. Which means that, yes, AI agents were essentially fighting against AI agents. And no, it's not as cool as you're imagining in your head.

OpenAI says that it's now implementing "strict controls... at the cost of research velocity" while it patches up vulnerabilities, and that it's working in partnership with Hugging Face to "forensically investigate" the incident.

I am... flabbergasted, if I'm honest. On the one hand, it's fascinating that some AI models possess the ability to breach containment and go roaming out into the internet at large to achieve their goals.

On the other, it's downright terrifying. We're now living in a world where AI ransomware, AI-coded hacking tools, and AI-based security breaches are becoming a reality, and given the aptitude shown to date, it seems that even legitimate companies can't always keep their models under control.

What particular form of Torment Nexus are we creating here, and where can I get off?

One reason I'm so anti-generative AI is because many models rely on a data set containing written or visual work used without the original creator's permission. As a writer myself, it's a small comfort then that the copyright suit brought against Anthropic has been settled in favour of the author plaintiffs.

Anthropic leveraged a library of millions of pirated books to train its Claude chatbot and, as a result, the AI company is now set to pay out a copyright settlement of $1.5 billion (via Euro News). Some of the affected authors argued this pay out was too small but, as of July 20, a US judge has now approved the deal, closing the book on one of the largest copyright class action lawsuits in US history.

Anthropic agreed to pay the $1.5 billion settlement back in September 2025, but a US judge only approved the deal this week. The settlement covers an approximate total of 500,000 works, with affected authors and publishers to be paid $3,000 for each pirated work. Anthropic says that 91% of those eligible have now filed a claim.

Flicking back to the beginning of this saga, writers Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson originally brought their lawsuit against Anthropic in 2024. The plaintiffs alleged that the AI company had used pirated books to train Claude.

In June 2025, a judge ruled that using the authors' work to train AI models fell under 'fair use' within US copyright law—however, Anthropic was not off the hook legally as many of the books that were fed to Claude were 'found' online and not lawfully acquired.

Considering the discovery of Anthropic's 'found' library originally exposed the company to statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work, I can certainly see why some authors thought the settlement amount was too low.

Add to that the private AI company enjoyed a $965 billion valuation back in May, and the $1.5 billion settlement increasingly feels like a slap on the wrist for Anthropic (mind you, the company also recently predicted it would only just be seeing its first profitable quarter this year).

Still, I suppose it's not a completely bleak resolution for creatives in the age of AI. Google, OpenAI, and Meta are each facing similar court cases over their own AI training practices. If any of these or other AI companies are found to have infringed upon creatives' copyright, here's hoping for a resolution that results in a bit more than just stinging wrists.

Nvidia announced DLSS 5 back in March and it received, let's say, mixed reactions. A lot of people weren't happy about how, judging by the demos, it seemed to essentially just slap a 'yassifying' AI filter on top of a game scene. Nvidia itself confirmed that all the tech has to work with for each AI frame is a traditional 2D frame and motion vectors, essentially confirming the "filter" idea. Now, at SIGGRAPH 2026, the company has explained that developers will get two main sliders to control DLSS 5's intensity.

My initial reaction was probably the same as yours: two whole sliders, whoop-de-doo. It's hardly a massive improvement from the one on-to-off masking slider we previously thought devs would have access to. But let's take a look at what they're actually controlling and how it works before we jump to conclusions.

The two sliders are for 'structural intensity' and 'tone intensity'. Despite what the word "structure" might seem to imply, Nvidia is keen to point out that "it is not changing the geometry in any way, and it is uplifting the image."

The structural intensity slider in fact is "modulating the high-frequency detail of the frame." This includes things such as ambient occlusion, subsurface scattering, and reflections. The tone intensity slider is "modulating the low frequency detail of the frame", including "expressive" things such as lighting and, well, overall tone.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, the fact that these are the only controls given to devs could just mean that model is in fact tailored so well that it's not worth giving more control over it than necessary. The company explains the model preserves artistic intent thanks to "internal buffers", so perhaps it wants to keep these buffers intact.

You can see the controls in action in the segment below.

Nvidia also says that the company is building more controls for developers to use and is "working with our partners to incorporate their feedback."

It's also worth noting that game devs will be able to mask different objects in a game scene, changing the structural and tone intensities for each independently. Devs might, for instance, want to give some background objects the full DLSS 5 makeover but keep a lighter touch with the characters.

To be fair, judging by the demo given by Nvidia's creative artist, introduced as 'Gaff', cranking up the structural intensity a little can indeed add a bit more realism to the scene without affecting the overall tone of a scene. That would be the ideal, I think. Things such as subsurface scattering can make a big difference, and Gaff notes that this "would be incredibly expensive to do in traditional rendering."

Alright, that's my devil's advocating done. It does make sense for this to be Nvidia's strategy, given it needs to keep everything quick and snappy for rendering by making the model so that it "does not need to peek ahead", instead just using a render and motion vectors to create what is essentially an AI filter. But that doesn't make it any less disappointing that there are, as of now, just two sliders to use.

Still, I suppose it's all optional. And Nvidia is keen to note this new addition to its AI feature list will exist alongside the others which are still being worked on. It "extends the existing pipeline. It does not replace them."

At any rate, we'll just have to see whether the further controls alluded to will be available when DLSS 5 launches this fall.

Translating brain activity into game inputs is the stuff of absurdly long-running sci-fi anime. It's also a tech that, though very much in its infancy, now exists in the real world too. For instance, attendees at this year's World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai could have a go at playing Black Myth: Wukong with just their brain waves.

AI enthusiast Huang Lu shared a video of the non-invasive brain-computer interface at WAIC 2026 via X. According to the exhibit's staff, it only takes about five minutes to calibrate for each gamer.

A WAIC press release describing the exhibit explains, "The non-invasive system captures and decodes neural signals, then converts the user's intentions into device commands. Related technology is also being used in sleep-related applications, early warning for epileptic seizures, and anesthesia monitoring."

The setup here is a bit different to similar brain-computer interfaces I've seen. Namely, it doesn't require the user to think of very specific stimulus in order to activate different regions of the brain, a la streamer PerriKaryal's EmotivBCI setup.

Instead of, say, thinking about a cricket jumping in order to dodge in-game, the setup at WAIC 2026 instead leverages Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials (SSVEP). This involves various on-screen targets projected over the top of gameplay flashing at different frequencies. According to Huang Lu, "Your brain generates unique EEG signals in response, which are detected by a headset and translated into in-game controls."

The most obvious application of a BCI like this is as another option for gamers with restricted mobility and physical disabilities. I do wonder whether this specific system's use of flashing targets would exclude folks with photo-sensitive epilepsy, though.

BCIs can also be challenging to game with due to latency. However, PerriKaryal has already demonstrated it's entirely possible to wipe the floor with Black Myth's second boss, Linguxi, using just the power of thought (and the odd voice command).

Other BCI tech was also on show at WAIC 2026. BrainCo demonstrated a similarly non-invasive BCI that allows users wearing an EEG headset to remotely control robotic limbs and humanoid robots. The press release explains: "The user puts on an EEG headset that picks up the wearer's brain signals, AI algorithms decode those signals to identify motor or control intent, then that intent gets converted into commands for the robot. The entire process takes under 200 milliseconds."

As cool as that sounds, just like with gaming, a 2 ms delay is still some serious latency to navigate. After all, if a robot drops the bottle it's pouring from, there's little hope of the interface recognising the impulse to catch it fast enough.

The Odyssey looks set to become this summer's big blockbuster hit, and its director, Christopher Nolan, is busy working the interview circuit. After his comments last week around AI slop and the younger generation's rejection of the tech, the Oscar-winning filmmaker went one step further in a chat with YouTube channel HugoDécrypte - Grands formats.

When asked about the Trojan horse metaphor in relation to AI, Nolan responded: "I think AI is a Trojan horse that everybody knows the Greeks are inside" (via TechCrunch).

Laughing along with the host, Nolan continued: "I've never seen a technology advancing so rapidly, so completely rejected by the public. Everybody's suspicion of it is so extreme, particularly young people."

"The reactions [towards] AI videos online, you know, people my children's age immediately calling it AI slop.. and just putting it in a box," said Nolan, echoing his earlier comments.

"Which I think is a very healthy scepticism, because technology is always going to give us great gifts... but it has to be viewed with scepticism, the motives of the people giving it to us also have to be viewed with scepticism," Nolan opines. "That's when we'll get the best out of a new technology, rather than just blind faith that everything's going to be great"

'It's a transparent horse. It's made of glass. Everybody can see what's going on inside," the director concludes.

Certainly, the younger generation's displeasure with their AI-influenced future has been easy to spot in recent months. Viral videos have shown students booing speakers at graduation and commencement events after mentioning AI, and given the uncertainty and gloomy predictions about the world they'll be walking into, that's probably no surprise.

Meanwhile, tech luminaries seem only too keen to give us starry-eyed predictions of the wonderful world AI will create for us all. Once it's had a bit of tweaking, naturally, and the super-duper new versions are here.

Personally, I find it very difficult to disagree with Nolan's comments. While AI certainly has its uses, the over-enthusiastic rhetoric surrounding it is both tiresome, and at this point, more than a little patronising. Scepticism is healthy—and was also, rather fittingly, majorly influenced by the works of the ancient Greeks. Could I put a better bow on it than that?

Well what a silly goose I am. Only a few days ago I was hyping up some new Windows (Insider) updates for actually looking like they might be decent for a change, and now I'm tearing my hair out trying to fix whatever the latest update (KB5101650) seems to have done to my PC. And yes, this is the first Windows update that Microsoft has used AI for, to help it discover a bunch more security fixes. It actually included a record 570 patches.

To be clear, it doesn't sound like Microsoft is saying AI is going to be used in fixes a lot more from now on, rather that it's going to be discovering a bunch more vulnerabilities thanks to AI, and then pushing out more fixes for them in each update. But a bunch more fixes each update, to my ears, just sounds like a higher likelihood of one or more of them breaking something.

And it seems like more than a coincidence that I ran into issues with my monitor the morning after the update.

My 400 Hz monitor will not run at 400 Hz anymore, at least not without cutting to black and re-connecting every second or two. Put it down to 360 Hz and that's every three or four seconds; down to 300 Hz and it's even more infrequent (but still terribly frequent). Put it down to 240 Hz, though, and I'm fine.

Peculiar.

I don't seem to be the only one struggling since the latest update, either, especially for those with an AMD card.

Judging by some Reddit threads, it seems like there are a few others struggling with display and graphics issues since the update dropped. Some of these problems could be coincidental—not everyone is linking their issues to the Windows update—but I doubt all of them are, given my own experience.

Microsoft has also had to pause the update for some Dell PCs due to a compatibility issue leading, in some cases, to "changes in performance, power consumption, or system behavior."

At any rate, I've not seen any word from Microsoft or AMD about the specific display issue I've encountered or other similar display and graphics issues I've seen some others reporting. I'll have to try reverting the update again, as my system didn't seem to want to get rid of the whole thing when I tried last night.

Whatever the case may be here, human or AI error, someone needs to get on it, pronto, because dropping from 400 Hz to 240 Hz is not pretty. Kidding, it's fine, I just don't like being forced into it from an update, if that is indeed what has happened.

Acerbic activism group Everyone Hates Elon (EHE) don't just aim their ire at Mr. Musk. The group's latest guerilla effort involves two bus stop ads lampooning Meta's latest smart glasses offering, taking aim at the wearables' capacity for covert surveillance.

The first ad was unveiled last week, and describes Meta's AI glasses as "The biggest advance in pervert technology since the trenchcoat." The most head turning of these guerilla marketing stunts cropped up a few days ago: Co-opting an image from Kylie Jenner's recent collaboration with Meta AI, a lenticular design is leveraged to give Jenner a They Live makeover when viewed from certain angles, complete with the words 'Meta: We're always Watching' (via Hyperallergic).

The activism group has pulled similarly pointed stunts on both sides of the Atlantic, though these two ads were unveiled in the UK. Kylie Jenner's They Live transformation was specifically erected "down the road from Meta's London HQ".

I'll spare you a former print professional raving about lenticulars, and instead explain the reference for the young'uns. They Live was written, directed, and scored by John Carpenter back in 1988. It stars late pro-wrestler "Rowdy" Roddy Piper as a drifter who, with the help of a pair of sunglasses, uncovers the subliminal messages hidden within advertising and that the world is being controlled by camouflaged aliens (hence Kylie Jenner's sci-fi makeover).

It is, as the kids say, 'a wild ride' that features one of the greatest fight scenes ever committed to film.

EHE's latest stunt was inspired by news that Meta is prototyping ‘super sensing’ AI glasses that record the wearer's every waking moment over video and audio. A little LED light usually denotes when Meta's already released smart glasses are recording, but sources say the prototyped 'super sensing' feature won't trigger this. Criticism centres on the fact that, not unlike a Ring doorbell, folks passing by won't necessarily know they're being recorded.

A report earlier this year revealed that footage captured by Meta's AI smart glasses is reviewed by human contractors who see far more than they bargained for. However, in one proposed system for the 'super sensing' feature, Meta wouldn't hold on to the footage captured and it wouldn't be available to the user either—instead, the metadata of recorded images and audio would be fed to Meta’s AI. It's argued this approach would sidestep a number of privacy concerns.

However, I still wouldn't be comfortable allowing an AI model to absorb even this personal data, especially since security researchers were able to leverage bad maths to get AI agents to cough up user personal data. Considering AI safety guard rails can also be bypassed with 'adversarial poetry,' I'm not eager to trust Meta's AI with even vaguely sensitive information.

According to 404 Media, a hacker has breached the company database of Suno, an online AI music generation tool. The hack is said to reveal multiple references to the training data it scraped from YouTube Music, Deezer, Genius, and others.

Suno has previously admitted that its tool was trained on "essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet" as part of court proceedings back in 2024.

The company has argued that it's allowed to train on copyrighted works under fair use protections, while the Recording Industry of America has accused it of unlawfully scraping tracks from YouTube specifically, among other complaints.

And looking at the details, it appears YouTube Music was indeed a primary target. A file entitled "youtube_music" reportedly contains a note that over two million music clips were scraped, while another dataset file notes a figure of "113,879 hours of youtube_music." Alongside "17,615 hours of genius_hq," "12,287 hours of Deezer", and "152,162 hours of ytm_tagged."

These figures, among others, amount to at least a decades worth of music ingested by Suno. The code also suggests that Suno used third-party proxies to scrape songs and other audio media, with PodcastIndex, an open online tool that creates lists of podcast media files, used to identify hundreds of thousand of different podcasts for potential scraping.

A Suno spokesperson said: "As we have stated in public filings and disclosures, Suno’s AI models have been trained on publicly available music files and related metadata accessible on third-party websites on the open internet."

"In November of 2025, we determined that Suno had been the subject of a limited security incident that was quickly contained," the statement continues. "At the time, we immediately conducted an investigation and verified that the incident primarily involved outdated source code that is no longer in use at Suno, and that no sensitive personal information was compromised."

The fair use argument has been made in relation to AI training data before. In June of last year, a US judge ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted content to train its AI models fell under fair use protections, but stopped short in regards to claims it used pirated material.

Meta won a similar case later that month, after a judge ruled in favour of the company over claims it trained its AI tools on 13 authors' books without permission.

All of which is to say, there's precedent to suggest this data-scraping behaviour is acceptable under US law. For Suno's part, the company has argued that its tool outputs songs that are significantly different from original works .

"We believe artists deserve both new opportunities and strong protections," a company spokesperson told 404. "That's why we've invested in safeguards designed to help prevent impersonation, and other forms of misuse, while continuing to develop technologies for AI identification."

As for those in the music industry, there is widespread concern around platforms like Suno—and AI's influence on music as a whole. Speaking to The Guardian, Catherine Anne Davies, a musician on the board of directors for the Featured Artists Coalition, said: "Most people don’t even want their work to be used for training AI.

"I’m interested in the way that AI can be assistive in the creative process—if it can make us more efficient, if it can streamline our processes. But generative AI for me, in terms of creative output, is a big no-no at the moment. I’m yet to be convinced"