My mother is 89 and lives without a feed — and seems to have more time than I do. Is that the missing social media, or her priorities? Social media isn't “worse” than television, but built differently: no stop signal, personalised — and in its AI form it answers back. The real question isn't “How much screen?” but “Who decides the next step?”
AI has arrived among pupils and students. Many teachers and universities want to keep it out of essays and theses, hoping AI text can be reliably detected. It cannot: OpenAI shut down its own detector, and tools wrongly flag up to 61% of non-native speakers as AI. The line between tool and ghostwriter is drawn by no software — only by the way we examine.
A start-up claims it has 'uploaded' a fruit fly — matching its behaviour to 91%. Still not a fly: the body is missing. Why the usefulness of intelligence saturates against the physical world, what that means for the AI bubble — and why movement science suddenly sits at the centre of the AI debate.
The viral MIT number — "95% of GenAI projects show no measurable ROI" — is real, but misread. The NANDA study does not say "AI doesn't work"; it says the way companies adopt AI doesn't work. Three independent studies (NANDA, BCG, McKinsey) land at roughly 5% — and the critics are right about a lot. It is integration that fails, not the technology.
Brilliant at first, forgetful later — nearly everyone knows the feeling with AI chatbots. Not a defect but by design: an AI reads text in pieces (tokens) and has only a limited "desk", the token window, where everything sits at once. When it fills up, the oldest items fall off (it forgets) and what matters gets buried (it grows imprecise). Both can be tamed — by hand and with sub-agents.
In 2026 Germany decided, politically, to exit Palantir — the federal government says no, the domestic intelligence service buys a European alternative. Except it isn't really an exit: the dependency isn't dissolved, just shifted one layer deeper. A “Palantir made in EU” answers the question of origin — the fundamental-rights question remains.
The value rarely lies in the individual AI story but in the ability to read the weekly news stream — to separate structural signal from noise. Using a typical AI-news video, I apply four test questions and cleanly separate what is officially verifiable from what remains mere assertion.
Two developments usually discussed separately are interlocking: AI turns the exploitation of vulnerabilities into a mass-market commodity — what used to cost weeks, a frontier model now handles overnight. And quantum computing threatens the foundation itself, asymmetric encryption. “Harvest now, decrypt later” is happening today. Both curves point upward and will foreseeably cross.
China's bet on AI and robotics is less a geopolitical arms race than a demographic emergency: two state experiments — the one-child policy and zero-COVID — created the fastest-ageing, shrinking society in history. AI and robots are meant to replace the people who soon won't exist. Not a faraway China story, but a preview of our own ageing Europe.
UBTECH unveiled a lifelike humanoid — positioned not as an industrial machine but as an „emotional companion“. It's the economic answer to a hard reality: collapsing birth rates, ageing societies and loneliness as a documented health problem. A great deal of capital is flowing into that gap — but is the robot really a solution?
Confidential Computing protects data not only at rest and in transit, but also while it is being processed – inside a hardware-encrypted enclave that even the cloud provider cannot look into. That genuinely solves the confidentiality problem, but it does not automatically solve digital sovereignty, because the roots of trust (the chips, the attestation technology) are themselves under US control.