A key operative from DOGE initiated plans to potentially kill Direct File, the free tax filing tool developed by the IRS, after offering assurances it would be spared from cuts.

Last year, Ross Scott who runs the Accursed Farms YouTube channel posted a video about Ubisoft taking The Crew offline and not only making it unplayable for everyone who purchased it, but also revoking people’s digital copies. He used it to launch th

The European Commission has published its full Digital Markets Act (DMA) decision against Apple, and it’s far, far worse than anybody expected. The Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, has accepted absolutely none of Apple’s arguments against being fined, and the decision threatens yet more existential damage to the company. Apple isn’t winning the argument, and, right or wrong, the decision has fangs. Huge fines, big threats Europe announced in April that it would fine Apple an eye-popping €500 million for noncompliance with the DMA, giving Apple 60 days to comply with its decision. One month later, the Commission published the full ruling against Apple, which details that changes the company made to its App Store rules did not go far enough to bring it into compliance. The decision warns that Apple is subject to additional periodic fines in the future if it fails to comply with the Commission’s strict interpretation of the DMA, no matter how inherently punitive some of its demands may be. (Can anyone else spell “tariffs”?) We’ll know soon enough if there are to be wider consequences to Europe’s demands. Apple now has 30 days to fully comply with the DMA (in Europe’s opinion) or face additional fines. The act itself came into force in November 2022 and began to be implemented against companies defined as ‘gatekeepers’ in 2023. The intention is to stop Apple and others from using their market position to impose anticompetitive limitations on developers.  Who is steering? The big bugbear relates to Apple’s anti-steering restrictions, which prevent developers from telling customers they can purchase services outside the App Store. The DMA demands that Apple let developers offer this option, which Apple does, but Europe argues that the limitations the company makes on doing so are not in compliance with the law. Europe also says Apple’s existing restrictions, fees, and technical limitations undermine the effectiveness of the DMA. That seems to mean Apple cannot charge a commission and cannot warn users of the consequences they face when shopping outside the App Store.  The Commission even plays dumb to the potential significance of permitting developers to link out to any website from within their apps, rather than being constrained to approved (and secure) sites. It says Apple has provided insufficient justification for this restriction and also wants Apple to remove messages warning users when they are about to make a transaction outside the App Store.  That’s going to be particularly pleasing to fraudsters, who may now attempt to create fake payment portals that look like reputable ones. Apple prevented $2 billion in fraud last year, the company has confirmed. Perhaps once the first big frauds take place, the EU may catch up to the online risks we all know exist. While I understand the original aim of Europe’s Digital Markets Act, the demands the Commission is making of Apple appear to go far beyond the original objective, which was to open up Apple’s platforms to competition.  The decisions now open Apple’s platform up to competitors.  There is a difference between the two, and, as described, it means Apple must now create and manage its platforms while permitting competitors to profit from those platforms at little or no cost. Apple rejects Europe Apple will fight in Europe.  “There is nothing in the 70-page decision released today that justifies the European Commission’s targeted actions against Apple, which threaten the privacy and security of our users in Europe and force us to give away our technology for free,” the company said. “Their decision and unprecedented fine came after the Commission continuously moved the goalposts on compliance, and repeatedly blocked Apple’s months-long efforts to implement a new solution. The decision is bad for innovation, bad for competition, bad for our products, and bad for users. While we appeal, we’ll continue engaging with the Commission to advocate on behalf of our European customers.” When the fine was initially revealed, the company also said:  “Today’s announcements are yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple in a series of decisions that are bad for the privacy and security of our users, bad for products, and force us to give away our technology for free. We have spent hundreds of thousands of engineering hours and made dozens of changes to comply with this law, none of which our users have asked for. Despite countless meetings, the Commission continues to move the goal posts every step of the way.” My take?  Far from saving Europe’s tech industry, the manner in which the DMA is being applied will make the region even less relevant. Lacking a significant platform of its own, Europe’s approach will reduce choice and increase insecurity. As the clear first target of the DMA, Apple will inevitably be forced to increase prices, charge developers more for access to its developer tools, and will I think simply stop selling some products and services in Europe, rather than threaten customer security. We know it can do this because it has done so before. Fundamentally, of course, the big question remains unaddressed: How much profit it is legitimate to make on any product or service? I imagine the European Commission doesn’t want to go near a question as fundamental to capitalist wealth extraction as that. Can you imagine the collapse in executive bonuses that would follow a decision to define what the maximum profit made in any business transaction should be? Lobbyists across the political spectrum would be appalled — that extra profit pays for their meals. Looking to the extent to which the current application of the DMA seems to favor Apple’s biggest competitors, I can’t help but imagine it’s been paying for a few European meals already. Nice work, if you can get it.  You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon, and MeWe.

Congress could potentially pass the first major legislation related to children’s online safety since 1998, as the Kids Online Safety Act, sometimes referred to as KOSA, was reintroduced earlier this month after stalling last year.The bill has proven to be a major talking point, garnering bipartisan support and the attention of tech giants, but it has also sparked concern re: targeted censorship from First Amendment rights groups and others advocating for LGBTQ+ communities.Now, it will have another shot, and the bill’s Congressional supporters will have a chance to state why they believe the legislation is needed in this ever-evolving digital age.The revival of the Kids Online Safety Act comes amid U.S. and global discussions over how to best protect children online. In late 2024, Australia approved a social media ban for under-16s. It’s set to come into effect later this year. In March, Utah became the first state to pass legislation requiring app stores to verify a user's age. And Texas is currently moving forward with efforts regarding an expansive social media ban for minors. The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA)—which would ban social media platforms from allowing children under 13 to create or maintain accounts—was also introduced earlier this year, but has seen little movement since.In an interview that aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, May 25, during a special mental health-focused episode, former Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, a Democrat who served Rhode Island, expressed a dire need for more protections surrounding children online.When asked about the Kids Online Safety Act, and if it’s the type of legislation America needs, Kennedy said: “Our country is falling down on its own responsibility as stewards to our children's future.” He went on to explain why he believes passing bills is just one factor of what needs to be addressed, citing online sports betting as another major concern.“We can't just pass these bills. We've got to stop all of these intrusive addiction-for-profit companies from taking our kids hostage. That's what they're doing. This is a fight,” he said. “And we are losing the fight because we're not out there fighting for our kids to protect them from these businesses [whose] whole profit motive is, ‘How am I going to capture that consumer and lock them in as a consumer?’”Calling out giant social media platforms, in particular, Kennedy went on to say: “We, as a country, have seen these companies and industries take advantage of the addiction-for-profit. Purdue, tobacco. Social media's the next big one. And unfortunately, it's going to have to be litigated. We have to go after the devastating impact that these companies are having on our kids.”Amid these ongoing discussions, here’s what you need to know about the Kids Online Safety Act in light of its reintroduction.What is the Kids Online Safety Act?The Kids Online Safety Act aims to provide further protections for children online related to privacy and mental health concerns exacerbated by social media and excessive Internet use.The bill would create “duty of care,” meaning that tech companies and platform giants would be required to take steps to prevent potentially harmful encounters, such as posts about eating disorders and instances of online bullying, from impacting minors.“A covered platform shall exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature to prevent and mitigate the following harms to minors: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors... patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors by minors…” the bill reads.Health organizations including The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, have pushed Congress to pass KOSA to better protect young people online—and see the bill as a potential way to intervene with the detrimental impact social media and Internet usage in general can have on one’s mental health. Newer versions of the bill have narrowed regulations to apply to limiting “design features” such as notifications, “infinite scrolling or autoplay,” and in-game purchases.It would also allow for more parental tools to manage the privacy settings of a minor, and ideally enable a parent to limit the ability for adults to communicate with their children via online platforms.What is the history of the bill? In 2024, KOSA seemingly had all the right ingredients to pass into law. It had bipartisan support, passed the Senate, and could have been put in front of President Joe Biden, who had indicated he would sign the bill.“There is undeniable evidence that social media and other online platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis,” President Biden wrote in a statement on July 30, 2024, after KOSA passed the Senate. “Today our children are subjected to a wild west online and our current laws and regulations are insufficient to prevent this. It is past time to act.”Yet, the bill was stalled. House Speaker Mike Johnson cautioned Republicans against rushing to pass the bill.“We’ve got to get it right,” Johnson said in December. “Look, I’m a lifelong advocate of protection of children…and online safety is critically important…but we also have to make sure that we don't open the door for violations of free speech.”The bill received support across both aisles, and has now been endorsed by some of the “Big Tech giants” it aims to regulate, including Elon Musk and X, Microsoft, and Apple.“Apple is pleased to offer our support for the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). Everyone has a part to play in keeping kids safe online, and we believe [this] legislation will have a meaningful impact on children’s online safety,” Timothy Powderly, Apple’s senior director of government affairs, said in a statement earlier in May after the bill was reintroduced.But other tech giants, including Facebook and Instagram’s parent Meta, opposed the bill last year. Politico reported that 14 lobbyists employed directly by Meta, as well as outside firms, worked the issue.The bill was reintroduced on May 14 by Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who were joined by Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.“Senator Blackburn and I made a promise to parents and young people when we started fighting together for the Kids Online Safety Act—we will make this bill law. There’s undeniable awareness of the destructive harms caused by Big Tech’s exploitative, addictive algorithms, and inescapable momentum for reform,” said Blumenthal in a statement announcing the bill’s reintroduction. “I am grateful to Senators Thune and Schumer for their leadership and to our Senate colleagues for their overwhelming bipartisan support. KOSA is an idea whose time has come—in fact, it’s urgently overdue—and even tech companies like X and Apple are realizing that the status quo is unsustainable.What is the controversy around KOSA?Since KOSA’s first introduction, it’s been the site of controversy over free speech and censorship concerns. In 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) discouraged the passage of KOSA at the Senate level, arguing that the bill violated First Amendment-protected speech.“KOSA compounds nationwide attacks on young peoples’ right to learn and access information, on and offline,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “As state legislatures and school boards across the country impose book bans and classroom censorship laws, the last thing students and parents need is another act of government censorship deciding which educational resources are appropriate for their families. The House must block this dangerous bill before it’s too late.”Some LGBTQ+ rights groups also opposed KOSA in 2024—arguing that the broadly worded bill could empower state attorneys general to determine what kind of content harms kids. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Blackburn, has previously said that one of the top issues conservatives need to be aware of is “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture and that influence.” Calling out social media, Blackburn said “this is where children are being indoctrinated.”Other organizations including Center for Democracy & Technology, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and Fight for the Future joined the ACLU in writing a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2024, arguing that the bill would not—as intended—protect children, but instead threaten young people’s privacy and lead to censorship.In response to these concerns, the newly-introduced version of the bill has been negotiated with “several changes to further make clear that KOSA would not censor, limit, or remove any content from the internet, and it does not give the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] or state Attorneys General the power to bring lawsuits over content or speech,” Blumenthal’s statement on the bill reads.Where do things currently stand?Now, KOSA is back where it started—sitting in Congress waiting for support.With its new changes, lawmakers argue that they have heard the concerns of opposing advocates. KOSA still needs support and passage from Congress—and signing from President Donald Trump—in order to pass into law.Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., has previously voiced strong support of the bill. “We can protect free speech and our kids at the same time from Big Tech. It's time for House Republicans to pass the Kids Online Safety Act ASAP,” Trump Jr. said on X on Dec. 8, 2024.

Editor’s note, May 21, 2025, at 9:50 am ET: The Senate has unanimously passed the “no tax on tips” bill. The bill will now head to the House. This article was originally published on August 13, 2024.First, some good news: In an otherwise polarizing and divisive election, there’s at least one policy proposal that’s emerging as a unifying issue. The bad news is that most experts think it’s a terrible idea. The proposal in question is to abolish federal taxes on tips. Donald Trump originally floated the idea at a campaign rally in June, and it gained enough traction that “No tax on tips” signs started making regular appearances at Trump campaign events and the Republican National Convention. Now, even his opponent Vice President Kamala Harris has endorsed the idea. “It is my promise to everyone here: When I am president, we will continue our fight for working families of America, including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers,” she told a crowd over the weekend.In a series of social media posts, Trump accused Harris of stealing his idea, saying that “she sounds more like Trump than Trump, copying almost everything.”On the surface, exempting tips from being taxed might sound like a pro-worker proposal with populist appeal, potentially boosting take-home pay for service sector workers who rely on tips to make a living. But the policy doesn’t really hold up under any scrutiny. And that’s because at best, “no tax on tips” looks a lot less like a tax cut for low- and middle-income families, and a lot more like a subsidy for big businesses. “I’m not at all saying that workers won’t get anything,” said Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute. “But I think that a meaningful share of the [federal] expenditures on a tax exemption like this will go to the employers of tipped workers.” That might be why industry lobbyists have backed the proposal. “It’s not a surprise that the National Restaurant Association loves this,” Shierholz said, referring to the lobbying group that represents many of the country’s major restaurant chains.At worst, the tax policy might even put a downward pressure on service sector wages by allowing employers to keep their workers’ baseline pay low because the tax cut could instead raise the workers’ take-home pay.“I think there is no question that it would” weigh wages down, Shierholz said. The only question, she says, is just how much.So while “no tax on tips” might make for a good sound bite or campaign slogan, it doesn’t necessarily translate to wise policymaking.Tipped workers don’t need a tax cut. They need a raise.The problem with tipped wages is not that they are taxed too heavily; it’s how little they tend to pay, and how much tipped workers have to rely on the kindness of strangers to make ends meet. In 2023, for example, the median annual wage for waiters was just below $32,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.In fact, as the Tax Policy Center put it, eliminating income taxes on tips would do little, if anything, for many tipped workers whose earnings are so low that they are already exempt from paying federal income taxes.“It’s very hard to dispute that the vast majority of moderate and low-wage workers are left out,” said Brendan Duke, senior director of economic policy at the Center for American Progress. “We know that 95 percent of low- and moderate-wage workers don’t get tips, and only about a third of those tipped workers pay income taxes and would benefit from this.” (Duke was specifically talking about Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s proposed legislation on this issue.)Part of the reason that tipped workers are paid so poorly is that the federal government only guarantees them a subminimum wage of $2.13 per hour. If along with tips, a worker’s earnings are still below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, then employers have to make up the difference. (Many states and municipalities have wage requirements above the federal minimum, but those also often include carve-outs with lower hourly minimums for tipped workers.)That’s why a handful of states have abolished the subminimum wage for tipped workers altogether. Because by allowing employers to pay tipped workers less, businesses essentially pass their payroll burden directly onto their customers. And while most Americans are used to paying tips, those who don’t — or those who at least threaten to not tip — create a hostile environment for workers and make it harder for employees to make a fair wage. Some studies have also shown that tipped wages encourage workers to discriminate against people of color, providing them with worse service because of racist stereotypes about who is more likely to leave a generous tip.Eliminating taxes on tips is a handout for businesses, not workersOne of the biggest concerns about doing away with federal taxes on tips is that it would discourage businesses from offering more competitive wages. That’s because if workers’ take-home pay increases because of a tax cut, employers wouldn’t need to provide tipped workers a higher base-line wage. In effect, it’s a tax cut that might mostly subsidize businesses’ payroll costs, not workers’ cost of living. “It will reduce employers’ needs to raise wages,” Shierholz, of the Economic Policy Institute, said. There’s also the fact that creating a tax carveout for tipped employees could create a major loophole for employers looking to pay people less. Some sectors, for example, can simply become part of the tipped economy, making more of their workers rely on tips rather than a minimum wage.The policy would “incentivize employers to have more workers be in tipped occupations,” Shierholz said. “[Employers] could reduce the base wages they pay their workers under the guise of doing something for the workers. They could say, ‘We’re making you tipped because you won’t have to pay taxes’ and then in the fine print, it’s like, ‘Oh also, you’re going to be making $2.13 an hour in base wages.’”That’s why pursuing other policies, like abolishing the subminimum wage, would do much more to increase workers’ pay than eliminating taxes on tips would. The poverty rate for tipped workers in states without a subminimum wage, for example, is lower than that in states with a subminimum wage. “If you really want to help tipped workers, there are other ways that are far, far better,” Shierholz said, adding that federal dollars would be better directed toward programs like the Child Tax Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which would be much better at targeting workers who need it. So if politicians are looking to tout a pro-worker agenda, they should point to policies that can actually raise people’s wages, as Harris did by also endorsing raising the minimum wage. Otherwise, they might just be pushing for yet another tax cut for the rich. After all, that might be why major business lobbying groups have endorsed “no tax on tips” — to avoid actually raising workers’ wages.See More:

Bold recycling claims deliberately distract from the disastrous ecological effects of plastic in buildings The building industry consumes nearly a fifth of all plastic produced globally. Plastic enters buildings not only as elements – window frames, fences, gutters and cable sheathing – but also in the form of petrochemical‑based polymers that permeate building products less visibly: dissolved in solvents, mixed into concrete and asphalt, impregnated into wood products, and affixed, laminated or otherwise agglomerated with other materials. These applications preclude their separation from other waste for recycling – a major reason why only a tiny proportion of the estimated 77 million metric tonnes of plastic waste from demolition or renovation is recycled. The rest is incinerated, landfilled or mismanaged.  This does not prevent building product manufacturers from routinely promoting plastic products as recyclable. VinylPlus, the recycling wing of the European Council of Vinyl Manufacturers, claims that nearly 27 per cent of vinyl products were mechanically recycled in 2021. But nearly two thirds of this was sourced from factory waste, before the vinyl even became flooring or roofing.  Recycling claims serve an important ideological function: to deflect corporate accountability for plastic’s deleterious effects, and to delay and derail efforts to restrict plastic production. Promoting these claims serves as a passcode to a ‘green’ building material industry expected to reach a value of over US$1 trillion by 2032. The infiltration of plastic in buildings runs deep. Some of the largest producers of construction chemicals and synthetic building products include the world’s largest private and state‑owned fossil fuel companies, such as Shell, ExxonMobil, Sinopec and Saudi Basic Industries (SABIC). The chemical and plastics industries are intertwined with the fossil fuel industry via extensive infrastructural, institutional and ideological ties, ranging from their shared and interdependent supply chains, to common political interests and secure global transport routes. These companies provide thousands of polymer‑based building products ranging from ready‑to‑install components (rigid insulation boards, waterproofing membranes, etc), to myriad adhesives, coatings, binders, sealants, admixtures and insulating foams – or provide their constitutive chemicals. ‘Architects must look up from their carbon calculators to question manufacturers’ claims of circularity’     The modern building product industry arose in tandem with the fossil fuel, chemical and plastics industries in the postwar era in the US and Europe. The massive productive capacity that had supplied the war effort was transformed to meet the needs and long‑repressed desires of a populace eager to partake in the fruits of peace, modernity and affluence, resulting in a flood of new plastic consumer goods. Among the new uses for plastic emerged an ever‑widening array of building products from flooring to cladding and furniture. By the late 1960s, however, plastic’s durability began to represent an existential threat to plastics and petrochemical companies as demand for plastic consumer goods began to wane. Industry’s solution? Disposability – not in response to consumers’ demand for convenience, but to the saturation of the market of plastic consumer goods that lasted too long. Disposability transformed a crisis of declining profit into a wellspring of unending demand and plastic waste. Eventually, producers became increasingly unable to credibly deny the problem of discarded plastic accumulating in great heaping piles and circling ocean gyres. What they could do was flood the mediascape with solutions that worked for them: redirecting focus from the obvious step of curtailing production, to downstream, consumer‑focused measures, such as increased recycling and the adoption of biogenic and recycled plastic feedstocks. Though plastic building products are less disposable than single‑use plastics, claims of ‘circularity’ similarly serve to sanction plastic use while ensuring that end‑of‑life costs stay off company ledgers.  Facing the prospect of declining demand for fuel due to electrification and the adoption of electric vehicles in much of the world, petrochemical industries have doubled down on expanding plastic fabrication as an economic lifeline. The immensely powerful nexus of fossil fuel, petrochemical and plastic industries have poured billions of dollars into new refineries and plastic production facilities. With nearly a fifth of plastic demand coming from the construction industry, these cartels have much at stake in maintaining their business. Accordingly, use of plastic in building is widely promoted by their well‑funded trade lobbies, including the American Chemical Council, Plastics Europe and the British Plastics Federation. These trade lobbyists work fervently to influence legislation to ensure the cost and responsibility of recycling is displaced onto consumers and municipalities, ‘externalising’ the cost of remediating what will be a legacy of toxic pollution left for future generations.  As a result, architects remain pressurised and incentivised to specify plastic products due to their low cost, superior performance, availability and lack of alternatives. Architects must look up from their carbon calculators, not only to question manufacturers’ claims of circularity, but also the limits of circularity within an economy predicated both on compulsory growth and – for some time to come – on fossil fuels. Lead image: Plastic is used in numerous applications in the built environment, from cladding and fences to adhesives and insulation foams. Manufacturers claim their plastic products are widely recycled as a tactic to obscure their origin in the petrochemical industry and their contribution to the climate emergency that causes extreme weather events such as wild fires. (Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times / Getty) 2025-05-21 Reuben J Brown Share AR May 2025CircularityBuy Now

The AI industry has promised to “disrupt” large parts of society, and you need look no further than the U.S. educational system to see how effectively it’s done that. Education has been “disrupted,” all right. In fact, the disruption is so broad and so shattering that it’s not clear we’re ever going to have a functional society again. Probably the most unfortunate and pathetic snapshot of the current chaos being unfurled on higher education is a recent story by New York magazine that revealed the depths to which AI has already intellectually addled an entire generation of college students. The story, which involves interviews with a host of current undergraduates, is full of anecdotes like the one that involves Chungin “Roy” Lee, a transfer to Columbia University who used ChatGPT to write the personal essay that got him through the door: When he started at Columbia as a sophomore this past September, he didn’t worry much about academics or his GPA. “Most assignments in college are not relevant,” he told me. “They’re hackable by AI, and I just had no interest in doing them.” While other new students fretted over the university’s rigorous core curriculum, described by the school as “intellectually expansive” and “personally transformative,” Lee used AI to breeze through with minimal effort. When I asked him why he had gone through so much trouble to get to an Ivy League university only to off-load all of the learning to a robot, he said, “It’s the best place to meet your co-founder and your wife.” The cynical view of America’s educational system—that it is merely a means by which privileged co-eds can make the right connections, build “social capital,” and get laid—is obviously on full display here. If education isn’t actually about learning anything, and is merely a game for the well-to-do, why not rig that game as quickly, efficiently, and cynically as possible? AI capitalizes on this cynical worldview, exploiting the view-holder and making them stupider while also profiting from them. When you think about the current assault on the educational system, it’s easy to forget how quickly this has all happened. A more recent story from 404 Media shows that the American educational system was largely caught unawares by the deluge of cheating that the AI industry would inspire. After accumulating thousands of pages of school district documents via FOIA requests from around the country, 404’s Jason Koebler found that ChatGPT has “become one of the biggest struggles in American education.” Koebler’s reporting notes that, in the early days of the AI deluge, school districts were courted by “pro-AI consultants” who were known to give presentations that “largely encouraged teachers to use generative AI in their classrooms.” For instance, Koebler writes that the Louisiana Department of Education sent him… …a presentation it said it consulted called “ChatGPT and AI in Education,” made by Holly Clark, the author of The AI Infused Classroom, Ken Shelton, the author of The Promises and Perils of AI in Education, and Matt Miller, the author of AI for Educators. The presentation includes slides that say AI “is like giving a computer a brain so it can learn and make decisions on its own,” note that “it’s time to rethink ‘plagiarism’ and ‘cheating,’” alongside a graph of how students can use AI to help them write essays, “20 ways to use ChatGPT in the classroom,” and “Warning: Going back to writing essays—only in class—can hurt struggling learners and doesn’t get our kids ready for their future.” In other words, AI acolytes seemed to anticipate that the technology would effectively ruin essay-writing and test-taking, and wanted to spin it to present the ruination as mere “transformation”—a new way of doing things—instead of a destructive force that would devastate education. This new way of doing things appears to be corrosive not just to students but also to teachers. Koebler’s investigation shows that the AI lobbyists courted schools by making appeals to instructors, showing them that the likes of ChatGPT would make curriculum-building and assignment-giving that much easier. Now, teachers, too, seem to be taking the easy way out, as a recent New York Times story shows that college professors have been using chatbots to create their lesson plans, just as their students are using them to complete said lesson. The result of all of this is so obvious that it doesn’t really bear repeating, but I guess will anyways: Everybody who uses AI is going to get exponentially stupider, and the stupider they get, the more they’ll need to use AI to be able to do stuff that they were previously able to do with their minds. The tech industry’s subscriber-based, “as-a-service” model is obviously on full display here, except that the subscription will be to intellectual capacity. The more you subscribe, the less “organic” capacity you’ll have. Eventually, companies will be able to pipe AI directly into your brain with the kind of neuro-implants being hawked by Neuralink and Apple. By then, of course, there will be no need for school, as we’ll all just be part of the Borg collective.