Fruit flies don't naturally enjoy the taste of cocaine. Credit: Deposit Photos Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. In a world first, scientists at the University of Utah have engineered fruit flies susceptible to cocaine addiction. But as strange as it sounds, there are potentially life-saving reasons for genetically altering the insects to crave the drug. The novel biological model could help addiction treatment therapies development and expedite research timelines. The findings are detailed in the Journal of Neuroscience. As surprising as it may sound, humans have a lot in common with fruit flies. In fact, we share around 70–75 percent of the same genes responsible for various diseases, as well as many of the same vital organs. Researchers have relied on the insects for genetic studies for years, especially for investigating the biological roots of certain addictions like cocaine abuse. This is due in large part to the fruit fly’s quick life cycle and its comparatively simple genetic makeup. But while scientists have administered the drug to the bugs in the past, there’s always been a small problem. “Flies don’t like cocaine one bit,” Adrian Rothenfluh, the study’s senior author and an associate professor of psychiatry, said in a statement. Even when previously introduced to cocaine, Rothenfluh’s team noted that the insects routinely opted for pure sugar water over sugar water laced with cocaine. Study first author Travis Philyaw theorized the reason may reside in a fly’s sense of taste that is found on their legs. “Insects are evolutionarily primed to avoid plant toxins, and cocaine is a plant toxin,” Philyaw explained. “They have taste receptors on their ‘arms’—their tarsal segments—so they can put their hand in something before it goes in their mouth, and decide, ‘I’m not going to touch that.'” After confirming that cocaine activates a fruit fly’s bitter-sensing taste receptors, Rothenfluh and Philyaw switched off those nerves. Once deactivated, there was little to stop the flies from developing a cocaine habit. These modified flies were subsequently introduced to sugar water infused with a low concentration of cocaine. Within 16 hours, the insects indicated a preference for the drug-laced drink. “At low doses, they start running around, just like people,” said Rothenfluh. “At very high doses, they get incapacitated, which is also true in people.” Now that researchers know how to breed the modified fruit flies, they can more easily study how cocaine addiction evolves in the body. Not only that, but they can do so on a much faster timeline by analyzing hundreds of genes at a time. “We can scale research so quickly in flies,” said Philyaw. “We can identify risk genes that might be difficult to uncover in more complex organisms, and then we pass that information to researchers who work with mammalian models.” From there, scientists can identify treatment targets that help link to human therapy options. “We can really start to understand the mechanisms of cocaine choice, and the more you understand about the mechanism, the more you have a chance to find a therapeutic that might act on that mechanism,” explained Rothenfluh.

Good News Colon cancer recurrence and deaths cut 28% by simple exercise, trial finds Any type of aerobic exercise works for the improvements, study finds. Beth Mole – Jun 2, 2025 6:05 pm | 42 Credit: Getty | Oli Kellett Credit: Getty | Oli Kellett Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Exercise is generally good for you, but a new high-quality clinical trial finds that it's so good, it can even knock back colon cancer—and, in fact, rival some chemotherapy treatments. The finding comes from a phase 3, randomized clinical trial led by researchers in Canada, who studied nearly 900 people who had undergone surgery and chemotherapy for colon cancer. After those treatments, patients were evenly split into groups that either bulked up their regular exercise routines in a three-year program that included coaching and supervision or were simply given health education. The researchers found that the exercise group had a 28 percent lower risk of their colon cancer recurring, new cancers developing, or dying over eight years compared with the health education group. The benefits of exercise, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, became visible after just one year and increased over time, the researchers found. The rate of people who survived for five years and remained cancer-free was 80.3 percent among the exercise group. That's a 6.4 percentage-point survival boost over the education group, which had a 73.9 percent cancer-free survival rate. The overall survival rate (with or without cancer) during the study's eight-year follow-up was 90.3 percent in the exercise group compared with 83.2 percent in the education group—a 7.1 percentage point difference. Exercise reduced the relative risk of death by 37 percent (41 people died in the exercise group compared with 66 in the education group). "The magnitude of benefit from exercise ... was similar to that of many currently approved standard drug treatments," the researchers noted. However, the exercise routines that achieved those substantial benefits weren't heavy-duty. Participants were coached to perform any recreational aerobic exercise they enjoyed, including brisk walking. Adding 45- to 60-minute brisk walks three or four times a week, or three or four jogs lasting 25 to 30 minutes, was enough for many of the participants to improve their odds. Overall, the goal was to get the exercise group over 20 MET hours per week. METs are Metabolic Equivalents of Task, which represent the amount of energy your body is burning up compared to when you're at rest, sitting quietly. Brisk walking is about four METs, the researchers estimated, and jogging is around 10 METs. To get to 20 MET hours a week, a participant would have to do five hours of brisk walking a week (e.g., five hour-long walks a week) or jog for two hours a week (e.g., four 30-minute jogs per week). “Quite impressive” The exercise group, which had supervised exercise for the first six months of the three-year intervention, reported more exercise over the study. At the end, the exercise group was averaging over 20 MET hours per week, while the education group's average was around 15 MET hours per week. The exercise group also scored better at cardiorespiratory fitness and physical functioning. Still, with the health education, the control group also saw a boost to their exercise during the trial, with their average starting around 10 MET hours per week. These findings "raise the possibility of an even more powerful effect of exercise on cancer outcomes as compared with a completely sedentary control group," the researchers note. For now, it's not entirely clear how exercise keeps cancers at bay, but it squares with numerous other observational studies that have linked exercise to better outcomes in cancer patients. Researchers have several hypotheses, including that exercise might cause "increased fluid shear stress, enhanced immune surveillance, reduced inflammation, improved insulin sensitivity, and altered microenvironment of major sites of metastases," the authors note. In the study, exercise seemed to keep local and distant colon cancer from recurring, as well as prevent new cancers, including breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. Outside experts hailed the study's findings. "This indicates that exercise has a similarly strong effect as previously shown for chemotherapy, which is really quite impressive," Marco Gerlinger, a gastrointestinal cancer expert at Queen Mary University of London, said in a statement. "One of the commonest questions from patients is what they can do to reduce the risk that their cancer comes back. Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation." "Having worked in bowel cancer research for 30 years, this is an exciting breakthrough in the step-wise improvement in cure rates," David Sebag-Montefiore, a clinical oncologist at the University of Leeds, said. "The great appeal of a structured moderate intensity exercise is that it offers the benefits without the downside of the well-known side effects of our other treatments." Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 42 Comments

Today, like most days, I made a trip to the post office to ship out my Poshmark sales. But what I'm shipping out looks a little different than it might have a few months ago. Of the seven packages I'm handing off, only one contains an item I'd consider "nice." Alongside that Fendi top are six pieces from fast-fashion brands—ultra cheap stuff I ordered from Chinese retailers like Shein and Temu that, until recently, I never expected to actually sell, given that someone could buy the same item new at, well, Shein and Temu prices. But since the United States' new tariff structure went into effect (primarily the elimination of the de minimus exemption), consumers have been forced to adjust to a reality in which they can't easily source everything from toothbrush holders to micro-trendy outfits from an low price Chinese retail giant, to say nothing of concerns over how much more they could be paying for pricier items like autos and appliances made with foreign parts or manufactured overseas. In this period of uncertainty, resale apps may be filling the void. My own Poshmark sales are up compared to the month before the tariffs went into effect, with a notable rise in sales of basic, cheap stuff. Curious, I talked to a few experts to see if my experiences were indicative of a broader trend—one that could mean good things (well, relatively speaking) for resale buyers and sellers alike.The vibe on the resale apps in the wake of tariffsThe rollout of the tariffs has been confusing and disjointed. It was (and still is) hard to predict when consumers will see price increases on foreign-made electronics, cars, and other goods, or on products assembled in the U.S. but made with imported parts. But from the start, it has been obvious that goods from China in particular were about to cost a whole lot more—including the volumes of stuff shipped directly to consumers from the likes of Temu and Shein, the latter of which is famous for uploading 10,000 new styles to its site every day (and for charging unbelievably low prices for all of them). Months ago, when the tariffs were first announced, people started wondering if they should start stocking up (and on what), whether they were importing cheap clothes from Shein or bracing for higher prices on more substantial goods like smartphones. I've bought more than my share of junk from Shein, though I know it is not exactly a sustainable or environmentally friendly choice. To make myself feel better about that, I've always listed the clothes on resale apps once I'm done with them. To be clear, these are cheaply made garments—you don't buy your capsule wardrobe on Shein; Shein is where you shop for micro-trends (styles that are currently all over your Instagram and Pinterest feed, but which won't be in two months) or basics like tank tops that you can use and abuse. Prior to the tariffs rolling out, it was inconceivable that anyone would pay me $9 (plus shipping) for a pre-worn, cheaply-made dress or workout set that I had only paid $15 for in the first place—but that's what started happening. In the past month, I've still sold clothing and accessories made by Adidas, Gucci, Skims, Ralph Lauren, Marc Jacobs, Reebok, and Givenchy, but those tend to be one-off sales. My Shein resales for the last four weeks absolutely dwarf them. I also sold a few electronics items—an Apple Watch and facial micro-current device—I had listed in my Poshmark shop months earlier. Could I chalk up all of these sales to tariffs, and to anxiety about impending price increases on electronics? My Shein sales this month vs. everything else Credit: Lindsey Ellefson Certainly I'm not alone in noticing it this trend. A Poshmark spokesperson tells me, "We’ve seen an increase in sales of internationally-made items, especially from brands that have announced price hikes due to high tariffs. Despite rising prices, demand for fast fashion remains strong as consumers seek trendy, affordable styles. Buying those pieces secondhand lets them stay on-trend while keeping clothing in circulation."In addition to Shein and Temu, higher-priced brands that publicly announced tariff-related price increases have also seen resale spikes, with sales of Columbia button-down shirts surging by 61% month over month, and sales of Hermès sandals up 27%. Buying used Hermès sandals is one thing—not all of us have $840 laying around to spend on designer slides to ring in the summer. But a Columbia button-down? That's the kind of item I'm used to finding at Marshall's for maybe $30—but people now seem to be flocking to buy them used, worried that even cheap shirts will become relatively priceier due to tariffs. Meanwhile, Poshmark reports sales on consumer electronics have increased as well: The week of April 27, resales of Sony products were up 22% month over month, and Apple products were up 21%. The times seem to be changing, and they're doing it in a hurry.What tariffs means for resale shoppersI am not only a resale seller, but a resale shopper, and the uncertainty around tariffs has made me a lot more discerning with what I'm buying new. Part of this is just that I'm now paying more attention. I love the leisure and athletic wear made by SET Active. I own a lot of it, and I have never before considered selling any of it because it lasts so long and maintains its shape so well. Until recently, I have also never paid much attention to where it is made: While SET Active designs its products in California, its active fabrics are all made in China. Prices haven't gone up on the official website yet, but in preparation for a time when they might, I've already started shopping the brand on Poshmark and Depop. It's not the worst thing in the world; buying used is both cheaper and more sustainable. I've always been an avid purchaser of resale goods—I've just never had to do it so strategically before. (I've found it easier to give up Shein altogether—I can manage fine without the $4 tank tops I've been putting through absolute hell the past few summers—but my Poshmark customers have proven more reluctant to resist the allure of fast fashion, even used.)I'm not alone in being more strategic with my resale purchases. Financial experts are noticing the same thing. "In the wake of the announcement and implementation of the tariffs, people have been looking for cheaper alternatives to the more expensive imported goods," says Aaron Razon, a personal finance expert at Couponsnake, "especially as many domestic products not only fall short in meeting the demand for certain products, but lack the variety and style that imported goods offer. [Domestic products] are also not exactly the cost-effective option consumers are looking for, and this is one of the major reasons interest in resale platforms [has] been on the increase."Bill London, an international business attorney, points out that in addition to causing prices to rise, tariffs have resulted in potential shipping delays, a fact that has also contributed to, "a surge in second-hand fast fashion interest." Six months ago, if you needed a certain kind of dress for, say, a themed bachelorette party, you could order it from Shein for $20, safe in the knowledge that you'd probably never wear it again. Today, its price could be closer to $30 or $40, and you might face delays in receiving it. The appeal of fast fashion was always in the low cost and convenience, provided you had 10 to 14 days to wait for the thing to arrive from China. Now, it just makes more sense to buy that dress from someone in the U.S. who likewise didn't see themselves rewearing it, —and now, they're selling it for roughly the same $20 they originally paid. For the buyer, it's still a relative deal, and it'll even arrive sooner. It's not just fast fashionBrands beyond Shein and Temu are seeing a lift. As the Poshmark rep pointed out, resales on select high-end brands are up, too. Buying used luxury goods has always been a smart financial decision (certainly it's a practice I've been dedicated to for a long time), but with manufacturing and importation costs an ever-murkier question, it's more sensible than ever. A spokesperson for Vestiaire Collective, a designer resale platform, tells me that U.S. buyers are increasingly able to see the duties applied to their purchases from Europe and Asia at checkout, and that the company has been working to beef up its American foothold for years. That effort is now paying off in a big way thanks to tariffs: In 2022, VC acquired Tradesey to increase its selection of pre-owned fashion offering for U.S. buyers, and it ramped up associated brand marketing the following year. VC also curates a list of goods that are ready to ship from New York City, making it easier for American buyers to identify items that can easily come to them domestically, no tariffs or duties required. Consequently, the brand rep says VC has, "seen a shift of more U.S. buyers buying from U.S. sellers" lately. Personally, I've noticed people buying from me lately, in particular, is workout attire. With the cost of everything going up, it might seem more of a stretch to pop into Lululemon to buy a new pair of leggings for over $100. Meanwhile, the trusty Shein alternative is now more money than its worth. It's this class of in-between necessities—things you don't need to survive, but may be a nice-to-have for your particular interests or lifestyle—that is a source of personal economic woe, and where resale can fill the gap. Whether you need new workout gear, a one-time wear outfit, a few basic pieces, or even a designer handbag, the reality of the post-tariff world is that you're almost certainly better off looking on resale apps before even considering buying new. (You certainly have options—I've assembled a rundown of my own favorite resale apps, including the goods you're most likely to find on each.)What this trend means for resellersI remain shocked that people who presumably would have once ordered their workout sets and summer shorts off Shein are filling the fast-fashion void by purchasing mine, but take it from me: If you have ever considered selling your old clothes or housewares, but figured what you have to offer is too basic, cheap, or plentiful to make the effort worth it, this is your moment. I used to have cheap goods and fast fashion listed on my resale accounts only because it helped keep my number of available listings up, which contributed to my profiles' reputation and lured in buyers for the pricier objects I actually expected to sell. Now, though, it's the cheap stuff that is really moving, and making me money. I've started reevaluating my closet and reconsidering what meets my threshold for "worth it" to list. Post-tariffs, everything is worth it to list. As London puts it, "The tariffs have altered the way in which people do their shopping." It's still pretty early into the great American tariff experiment, but some brands commissioned surveys early on this year to see how people were planning to deal with cost increases and found that a major chunk of consumers indeed expected to rely more on resale. ThredUp, another online resale platform, found that 59% of consumers reported that if apparel got more expensive, they'd look to more affordable options, like secondhand buying, and consumers planned to spend 34% of their apparel budget on secondhand items this year. And those figures are a lot higher for Millennials and Gen Z buyers: They reported planning to spend almost half their clothing budget on resale. Data from Smartly, an online shopping rewards app, also shows that 50% of survey respondents planned to consider resale goods in the face of rising costs. This means that even for casual resellers or those new to the concept entirely, there are a lot of new prospective buyers, which can translate directly to quick sales. At a time when the cost of necessary goods is rising right alongside those in-between necessities, you can make extra cash by selling what you already have. In general, my sales are way up month over month since tariffs went into effect in early May Credit: Lindsey Ellefson Will the resale spike last?I've been buying and selling on resale apps for years and have always had success finding cool stuff to buy as fast as I could get rid of my old clothing, accessories, and electronics. While I've definitely noticed a spike in my sales lately, that's not to say there wasn't demand before the tariffs were announced. If you're new to buying or selling on an app, don't worry that the bubble will burst and you'll have invested a bunch of time in listing your wares for nothing—even if and when the moment passes, reselling can still be a reliable way to make a little extra cash. (In the meantime, if you have a lot to sell and want to maximize your profits, download a cross-lister like Vendoo, which helps you easily list the same product across multiple marketplaces.)Some experts do expect that things could cool down in the nearer term. "Whether the trend persists depends on a number of things, such as how long the tariffs are in effect and how buyers respond to costs," London says. "The resale market for the products is likely to continue expanding if the tariffs are maintained. The demand might plateau or divert towards quality goods or eco-friendly goods when buyers adapt." Razon, meanwhile, thinks resale apps will continue to thrive, but that the interest in procuring cheaply-made things, like fast fashion, may wane. "Resale platforms have been on the good end of the recent tariff increases, especially with consumers looking for cheaper alternatives to imported goods," he says. "The truth is—though it may take consumers time to realize it—they will eventually come to appreciate better-quality goods. There is a great chance that consumers' interest in these lesser-quality goods will wear off as soon as they begin to adjust to the new economic reality."That is to say, list your Shein, Temu, and Aliexpress stuff now while people are still mourning its loss, but also consider those more familiar brands that may also soon see price hikes. Take stock of your closet and do a bit of research to see where all your potential stock is made. Just like I'm worried my beloved SET Active attire is going to go up in price because it's made in China, consumers may soon find themselves wanting to source cheaper stuff from Nike, Adidas, Lululemon, Levi's, and more, as all of those companies manufacture a lot of their clothing overseas. The resale platforms themselves are already anticipating that their digital products are going to get more valuable and stay valuable through (and beyond) the tariff era. Manish Chandra, Poshmark's founder and CEO, says, "As the landscape of tariffs and imports evolves, we believe the secondhand marketplace will become an increasingly valuable and cost-effective resource for American consumers. By shopping from Poshmark closets or starting their own, consumers are supporting sustainability and helping strengthen the American economy." In other words, buying resale is another way of buying American, even if everything you're buying was made in India or China.

How Deepfakes Are Created Generative AI models enable the creation of highly realistic fake media. Most deepfakes today are produced by training deep neural networks on real images, video or audio of a target person. The two predominant AI architectures are generative adversarial networks (GANs) and autoencoders. A GAN consists of a generator network that produces synthetic images and a discriminator network that tries to distinguish fakes from real data. Through iterative training, the generator learns to produce outputs that increasingly fool the discriminator¹. Autoencoder-based tools similarly learn to encode a target face and then decode it onto a source video. In practice, deepfake creators use accessible software: open-source tools like DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap dominate video face-swapping (one estimate suggests DeepFaceLab was used for over 95% of known deepfake videos)². Voice-cloning tools (often built on similar AI principles) can mimic a person’s speech from minutes of audio. Commercial platforms like Synthesia allow text-to-video avatars (turning typed scripts into lifelike “spokespeople”), which have already been misused in disinformation campaigns³. Even mobile apps (e.g. FaceApp, Zao) let users do basic face swaps in minutes⁴. In short, advances in GANs and related models make deepfakes cheaper and easier to generate than ever. Diagram of a generative adversarial network (GAN): A generator network creates fake images from random input and a discriminator network distinguishes fakes from real examples. Over time the generator improves until its outputs “fool” the discriminator⁵ During creation, a deepfake algorithm is typically trained on a large dataset of real images or audio from the target. The more varied and high-quality the training data, the more realistic the deepfake. The output often then undergoes post-processing (color adjustments, lip-syncing refinements) to enhance believability¹. Technical defenses focus on two fronts: detection and authentication. Detection uses AI models to spot inconsistencies (blinking irregularities, audio artifacts or metadata mismatches) that betray a synthetic origin⁵. Authentication embeds markers before dissemination – for example, invisible watermarks or cryptographically signed metadata indicating authenticity⁶. The EU AI Act will soon mandate that major AI content providers embed machine-readable “watermark” signals in synthetic media⁷. However, as GAO notes, detection is an arms race – even a marked deepfake can sometimes evade notice – and labels alone don’t stop false narratives from spreading⁸⁹. Deepfakes in Recent Elections: Examples Deepfakes and AI-generated imagery already have made headlines in election cycles around the world. In the 2024 U.S. primary season, a digitally-altered audio robocall mimicked President Biden’s voice urging Democrats not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. The caller (“Susan Anderson”) was later fined $6 million by the FCC and indicted under existing telemarketing laws¹⁰¹¹. (Importantly, FCC rules on robocalls applied regardless of AI: the perpetrator could have used a voice actor or recording instead.) Also in 2024, former President Trump posted on social media a collage implying that pop singer Taylor Swift endorsed his campaign, using AI-generated images of Swift in “Swifties for Trump” shirts¹². The posts sparked media uproar, though analysts noted the same effect could have been achieved without AI (e.g., by photoshopping text on real images)¹². Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform carried AI-generated clips, including a parody “Ad” depicting Vice-President Harris’s voice via an AI clone¹³. Beyond the U.S., deepfake-like content has appeared globally. In Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election, a video surfaced on social media in which a convincingly generated image of the late President Suharto appeared to endorse the candidate of the Golkar Party. Days later, the endorsed candidate (who is Suharto’s son-in-law) won the presidency¹⁴. In Bangladesh, a viral deepfake video superimposed the face of opposition leader Rumeen Farhana onto a bikini-clad body – an incendiary fabrication designed to discredit her in the conservative Muslim-majority society¹⁵. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been repeatedly targeted by AI-driven disinformation; one deepfake video falsely showed her resigning and endorsing a Russian-friendly party, apparently to sow distrust in the electoral process¹⁶. Even in Taiwan (amidst tensions with China), a TikTok clip circulated that synthetically portrayed a U.S. politician making foreign-policy statements – stoking confusion ahead of Taiwanese elections¹⁷. In Slovakia’s recent campaign, AI-generated audio mimicking the liberal party leader suggested he plotted vote-rigging and beer-price hikes – instantly spreading on social media just days before the election¹⁸. These examples show that deepfakes have touched diverse polities (from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Moldova, Slovakia, India and beyond), often aiming to undermine candidates or confuse voters¹⁵¹⁸. Notably, many of the most viral “deepfakes” in 2024 were actually circulated as obvious memes or claims, rather than subtle deceptions. Experts observed that outright undetectable AI deepfakes were relatively rare; more common were AI-generated memes plainly shared by partisans, or cheaply doctored “cheapfakes” made with basic editing tools¹³¹⁹. For instance, social media was awash with memes of Kamala Harris in Soviet garb or of Black Americans holding Trump signs¹³, but these were typically used satirically, not meant to be secretly believed. Nonetheless, even unsophisticated fakes can sway opinion: a U.S. study found that false presidential ads (not necessarily AI-made) did change voter attitudes in swing states. In sum, deepfakes are a real and growing phenomenon in election campaigns²⁰²¹ worldwide – a trend taken seriously by voters and regulators alike. U.S. Legal Framework and Accountability In the U.S., deepfake creators and distributors of election misinformation face a patchwork of tools, but no single comprehensive federal “deepfake law.” Existing laws relevant to disinformation include statutes against impersonating government officials, electioneering (such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires disclaimers on political ads), and targeted statutes like criminal electioneering communications. In some cases ordinary laws have been stretched: the NH robocall used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and mail/telemarketing fraud provisions, resulting in the $6M fine and a criminal charge. Similarly, voice impostors can potentially violate laws against “false advertising” or “unlawful corporate communications.” However, these laws were enacted before AI, and litigators have warned they often do not fit neatly. For example, deceptive deepfake claims not tied to a specific victim do not easily fit into defamation or privacy torts. Voter intimidation laws (prohibiting threats or coercion) also leave a gap for non-threatening falsehoods about voting logistics or endorsements. Recognizing these gaps, some courts and agencies are invoking other theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently charged individuals under broad fraud statutes (e.g. for a plot to impersonate an aide to swing votes in 2020), and state attorneys general have considered deepfake misinformation as interference with voting rights. Notably, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is preparing to enforce new rules: in April 2024 it issued an advisory opinion limiting “non-candidate electioneering communications” that use falsified media, effectively requiring that political ads use only real images of the candidate. If finalized, that would make it unlawful for campaigns to pay for ads depicting a candidate saying things they never did. Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled that purely commercial deepfakes could violate consumer protection or election laws (for example, liability for mass false impersonation or for foreign-funded electioneering). U.S. Legislation and Proposals Federal lawmakers have proposed new statutes. The DEEPFAKES Accountability Act (H.R.5586 in the 118th Congress) would, among other things, impose a disclosure requirement: political ads featuring a manipulated media likeness would need clear disclaimers identifying the content as synthetic. It also increases penalties for producing false election videos or audio intended to influence the vote. While not yet enacted, supporters argue it would provide a uniform rule for all federal and state campaigns. The Brennan Center supports transparency requirements over outright bans, suggesting laws should narrowly target deceptive deepfakes in paid ads or certain categories (e.g. false claims about time/place/manner of voting) while carving out parody and news coverage. At the state level, over 20 states have passed deepfake laws specifically for elections. For example, Florida and California forbid distributing falsified audio/visual media of candidates with intent to deceive voters (though Florida’s law exempts parody). Some states (like Texas) define “deepfake” in statutes and allow candidates to sue or revoke candidacies of violators. These measures have had mixed success: courts have struck down overly broad provisions that acted as prior restraints (e.g. Minnesota’s 2023 law was challenged for threatening injunctions against anyone “reasonably believed” to violate it). Critically, these state laws raise First Amendment issues: political speech is highly protected, so any restriction must be tightly tailored. Already, Texas and Virginia statutes are under legal review, and Elon Musk’s company has sued under California’s law (which requires platforms to label or block deepfakes) as unconstitutional. In practice, most lawsuits have so far centered on defamation or intellectual property (for instance, a celebrity suing over a botched celebrity-deepfake video), rather than election-focused statutes. Policy Recommendations: Balancing Integrity and Speech Given the rapidly evolving technology, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach. Most stress transparency and disclosure as core principles. For example, the Brennan Center urges requiring any political communication that uses AI-synthesized images or voice to include a clear label. This could be a digital watermark or a visible disclaimer. Transparency has two advantages: it forces campaigns and platforms to “own” the use of AI, and it alerts audiences to treat the content with skepticism. Outright bans on all deepfakes would likely violate free speech, but targeted bans on specific harms (e.g. automated phone calls impersonating voters, or videos claiming false polling information) may be defensible. Indeed, Florida already penalizes misuse of recordings in voter suppression. Another recommendation is limited liability: tying penalties to demonstrable intent to mislead, not to the mere act of content creation. Both U.S. federal proposals and EU law generally condition fines on the “appearance of fraud” or deception. Technical solutions can complement laws. Watermarking original media (as encouraged by the EU AI Act) could deter the reuse of authentic images in doctored fakes. Open tools for deepfake detection – some supported by government research grants – should be deployed by fact-checkers and social platforms. Making detection datasets publicly available (e.g. the MIT OpenDATATEST) helps improve AI models to spot fakes. International cooperation is also urged: cross-border agreements on information-sharing could help trace and halt disinformation campaigns. The G7 and APEC have all recently committed to fighting election interference via AI, which may lead to joint norms or rapid response teams. Ultimately, many analysts believe the strongest “cure” is a well-informed public: education campaigns to teach voters to question sensational media, and a robust independent press to debunk falsehoods swiftly. While the law can penalize the worst offenders, awareness and resilience in the electorate are crucial buffers against influence operations. As Georgia Tech’s Sean Parker quipped in 2019, “the real question is not if deepfakes will influence elections, but who will be empowered by the first effective one.” Thus policies should aim to deter malicious use without unduly chilling innovation or satire. References: https://www.security.org/resources/deepfake-statistics/. https://www.wired.com/story/synthesia-ai-deepfakes-it-control-riparbelli/. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107292. https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102jb19/eu-ai-act-unpacked-8-new-rules-on-deepfakes. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/we-looked-at-78-election-deepfakes-political-misinformation-is-not-an-ai-problem. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/new-and-old-tools-to-tackle-deepfakes-and-election-lies-in-2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/political-deepfakes-and-elections/. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. https://law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2022/06/nagumotu_pp113-157.pdf. https://dfrlab.org/2024/10/02/brazil-election-ai-research/. https://dfrlab.org/2024/11/26/brazil-election-ai-deepfakes/. https://freedomhouse.org/article/eu-digital-services-act-win-transparency. The post The Legal Accountability of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Election Misinformation appeared first on MarkTechPost.

A small home in Wayne County, Missouri was torn apart by a tornado. An aerial image by Jeff Roberson taken on March 15 depicts chunks of stick-framed walls and half-recognizable debris strewn across a patchy lawn in an eviscerated orthography of middle-American life. Elisa Iturbe, assistant professor of Architecture at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, describes this scene as “an image of climate impact, climate victimhood…these walls are doing the hard work of containment, of containing the rituals of human lifestyle.” Roberson’s image embodied the themes that emerged from the Projective Territories Symposium: The atomized fragility of contemporary American domesticity, the fundamental link between ways of living and modes of land tenure, and the necessary primacy of form in architecture’s response to the incoming upheaval of climate change. Lydia Kallipoliti talked about her 2024 book Histories of Ecological Design; An Unfinished Cyclopedia. (Andy Eichler) Projective Territories was hosted at Kent State University’s College of Architecture and Environmental Design on April 3 and 4. Organized and led by the CAED’s assistant professor Paul Mosley, the symposium brought Iturbe, Columbia University’s associate professor Lydia Kallipoliti, California College of the Arts’ associate professor Neeraj Bhatia, and professor Albert Pope of Rice University to Kent, Ohio, to discuss the relationship between territory and architecture in the face of climate change. “At its core, territory is land altered by human inhabitation,” read Mosley’s synopsis. “If ensuring a survivable future means rethinking realities of social organization, economy, and subsistence, then how might architecture—as a way of thinking and rethinking the world—contribute to these new realities?” Projective Territories kicked off on the afternoon of April 3 with a discussion of Bhatia’s Life After Property exhibition hosted at the CAED’s Armstrong Gallery. The exhibition collected drawings, renderings, and models by Bhatia’s practice The Open Workshop on a puzzle-piece shaped table constructed from plywood and painted blue. Nestled into the table’s geometric subtractions, Bhatia, Pope, Mosley, and CAED associate professor Taraneh Meshkani discussed Bhatia’s research into the commons: A system of land tenure by which communities manage and share resources with minimal reliance on the state through an ethic of solidarity, mutualism, and reciprocity. Neeraj Bhatia presented new typologies for collective living. (Andy Eichler) The symposium’s second day was organized into a morning session, “The Erosion of Territory,” with lectures by Kallipoliti and Iturbe, and an afternoon session, “The Architecture of Expanding Ecologies,” with lectures by Bhatia and Pope. Mosley’s introduction to “The Erosion of Territory” situated Kallipoliti and Iturbe’s work in a discussion about “how territories have been historically shaped by extraction and control and are unraveling under strain.” Lydia Kallipoliti’s lecture “Ecological Design; Cohabiting the World” presented questions raised by her 2024 book Histories of Ecological Design; An Unfinished Cyclopedia, which she described as “an attempt to clarify how nature as a concept was used in history.” Kallipoliti proposed an ecological model that projects outward from domestic interiors to the world to generate a “universe of fragmented worldviews and a cloud of stories.” Iturbe’s “Transgressing Immutable Lines” centered on her research into the formal potentials for Community Land Trusts—nonprofits that own buildings in trust on existing real estate. Iturbe described these trusts as “Not just a juridical mechanism, but a proposal for rewriting the relationship between land and people.” “Ecology is the basis for a more pleasurable alternative,” said Mosley in his introduction to the day’s second session. “Cooperation and care aren’t the goals, but the means of happiness.” An exhibition complementing the symposium shared drawings, renderings, and models. (Andy Eichler) Neeraj Bhatia’s lecture “Life After Property” complemented the previous days’ exhibition, problematizing the housing crisis as an ideological commitment to housing rooted in market speculation. Bhatia presented new typologies for collective living with the flexibility to formally stabilize the interpersonal relationships that define life in the commons. Albert Pope finished the day’s lectures with “Inverse Utopia,” presenting work from his 2024 book of the same name, which problematizes postwar American urban sprawl as an incapability to visualize the vast horizontal expansion of low-density development. Collectively, the day’s speakers outlined a model that situated the American domestic form at the center of the global climate crisis. Demanding complete separation from productive territories, this formal ideology of the isolated object is in a process of active dismemberment under climate change. The speakers’ proposed solutions were unified under fresh considerations of established ideas of typology and form, directly engaging politics of the collective as an input for shaping existing space. As Friday’s session drew to a close, the single-family home appeared as a primitive relic which architecture must overcome. Albert Pope’s images of tower complexes in Hong Kong and council estates in London that house thousands appeared as visions of the future. “The only way we can begin to address this dilemma is to begin to understand who we are in order to enlist the kinds of collective responses to this problem,” said Pope. Walker MacMurdo is an architectural designer, critic, and adjunct professor who studies the relationship between architecture and the ground at Kent State University’s College of Architecture and Environmental Design.

Google's reckoning Google and DOJ tussle over how AI will remake the web in antitrust closing arguments Google and the DOJ get one last chance to make their cases. Ryan Whitwam – May 30, 2025 5:40 pm | 15 Credit: Ryan Whitwam Credit: Ryan Whitwam Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more From its humble beginnings in the late 20th century, Google has come to dominate online searches, putting it squarely in the US government's antitrust crosshairs. The ongoing search antitrust case threatens to upend Google's dominance, giving smaller players a chance to thrive and possibly wiping others out. After wrapping up testimony in the case earlier this month, lawyers for Google and the Department of Justice have now made their closing arguments. The DOJ won the initial trial, securing a ruling that Google used anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly in general search. During the time this case has taken to meander its way through the legal system, the online landscape has been radically altered, making it harder than ever to envision a post-Google Internet. To address Google's monopoly, the DOJ is asking United States District Judge Amit Mehta to impose limits on Google's business dealings and order a divestment of the Chrome browser. Forcing the sale of Chrome would be a major penalty and a coup for the DOJ lawyers, but this issue has been overshadowed somewhat as the case drags on. During closing arguments, the two sides dueled over how Google's search deals and the rise of AI could change the Internet as we know it. Collateral damage This case has examined the myriad ways Google used its influence and money to suppress competition. One of the DOJ's main targets is the placement deals Google signs with companies like Apple and Mozilla to be the default search provider. Google has contended that people can change the defaults anytime they wish, but the DOJ produced evidence at trial that almost no one does, and Google knows that. During closing arguments,  Mehta asked both sides about testimony from a Mozilla executive alleging that losing the Google search deal could destroy the company. Similarly, Apple's Eddie Cue said he loses sleep over the possibility of losing the Google revenue—unsurprising as the arrangement is believed to net the company $20 billion per year. Should Firefox die to teach Google a lesson? Credit: Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle Should Firefox die to teach Google a lesson? Credit: Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle The DOJ's David Dahlquist admitted that there could be some "private impact" but contended Apple and Mozilla are overestimating the risk. Mehta didn't seem totally satisfied with the government's position, noting that he didn't want to damage other markets in an effort to fix search. Google's counsel also went after the government on the privacy front. One of the DOJ's proposed remedies would require Google to license its search index and algorithm, which CEO Sundar Pichai claimed was no better than a spinoff of Google's core product. Google also claims that forcing it to license search would put everyone's privacy at risk because it has a vast amount of user data that fuels search. Google attorney John Schmidtlein said the DOJ's treatment of user privacy in the remedies was a "complete failure." Mehta questioned the government lawyers pointedly on the issue of privacy, which he noted was barely addressed in the remedy filings. The DOJ's Adam Severt suggested an independent committee would have to be empaneled to decide how to handle Google's user data, but he was vague on how long such a process could take. Google's team didn't like this idea at all. Case may hinge on AI During testimony in early May, Mehta commented that the role AI plays in the trial had evolved very quickly. In 2023, everyone in his courtroom agreed that the impact of AI on search was still years away, and that's definitely not the case now. That same thread is present in closing arguments. Mehta asked the DOJ's Dahlquist if someone new was just going to "come off the sidelines" and build a new link-based search product, given  the developments with AI. Dahlquist didn't answer directly, noting that although generative AI products didn't exist at the time covered by the antitrust action, they would be key to search going forward. Google certainly believes the AI future is already here—it has gone all-in with AI search over the past year. At the same time, Google is seeking to set itself apart from AI upstarts. "Generative AI companies are not trying to out-Google Google," said Schmidtlein. Google's team contends that its actions have not harmed any AI products like ChatGPT or Perplexity, and at any rate, they are not in the search market as defined by the court. Mehta mused about the future of search, suggesting we may have to rethink what a general search engine is in 2025. "Maybe people don’t want 10 blue links anymore," he said. The Chromium problem and an elegant solution At times during the case, Mehta has expressed skepticism about the divestment of Chrome. During closing arguments, Dahlquist reiterated the close relationship between search and browsers, reminding the court that 35 percent of Google's search volume comes from Chrome. Mehta now seems more receptive to a Chrome split than before, perhaps in part because the effects of the other remedies are becoming so murky. He called the Chrome divestment "less speculative" and "more elegant" than the data and placement remedies. Google again claimed, as it has throughout the remedy phase, that forcing it to give up Chrome is unsupported in the law and that Chrome's dominance is a result of innovation. Even if Mehta leans toward ordering this remedy, Chromium may be a sticking point. The judge seems unconvinced that the supposed buyers—a group which apparently includes almost every major tech firm—have the scale and expertise needed to maintain Chromium. This open source project forms the foundation of many other browsers, making its continued smooth operation critical to the web. If Google gives up Chrome, Chromium goes with it, but what about the people who maintain it? The DOJ contends that it's common for employees to come along with an acquisition, but that's far from certain. There was some discussion of ensuring a buyer could commit to hiring staff to maintain Chromium. The DOJ suggests Google could be ordered to provide financial incentives to ensure critical roles are filled, but that sounds potentially messy. A Chrome sale seems more likely now than it did earlier, but nothing is assured yet. Following the final arguments from each side, it's up to Mehta to mull over the facts before deciding Google's fate. That's expected to happen in August, but nothing will change for Google right away. The company has already confirmed it will appeal the case, hoping to have the original ruling overturned. It could still be years before this case reaches its ultimate conclusion. Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he's written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards. 15 Comments

"AI is inevitable."That's a phrase that's rattled around my head for a month. Not willingly mind you. It's taken up lodging in my grey matter after hearing it in meetings, reading it in emails, and seeing it buffeted back and forth across Bluesky, LinkedIn, and Discord.It's not a convincing phrase. If you hear it from AI boosters it's easy to brush off as raw hype, and if you hear it from doomsayers it can lull you into a sense of fatalism. But as the philosopher Natasha Bedingfield told us in 2004, today is where the book begins, the rest is still unwritten. Nothing, for better or worse, is inevitable.But in those various calls another phrase—one you may have heard at your studio—has slipped past more unnoticed: "AI is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil, like any other tool."After all this is a business where we use tools for good or evil, right and wrong, correctly and incorrectly. We debate the effectiveness of Unity, Unreal, or Godot. We agonize over whether to use procedural versus hand-crafted content. We debate and discuss the topic so much that Game Developers Conference has a whole Tools Summit dedicated to craft of making game development software.Viewing generative AI through the neutral lens of tool assessment is natural—and I'll go so far as to say admirable—for our community. It's a method we use to get past hype and bombast, to try and take technology on its own terms and see how it fits our purposes. And as the 2025 GDC State of the Industry report tells us, some developers are adopting generative AI, plenty of them not bought in on the hype but through the act of seeking the right tool for the job.Related:But looking at generative AI as 'just a tool' is a deeply flawed lens. That phrase betrays a quiet cynicism (one we hear often from opponents of firearm regulation in the United Stats). Because nothing—not generative AI, not a firearm, not even a hammer—is "just a tool."The function of tools is influenced by their formConsider two tools found in many American households: the claw hammer and the handgun.Normally Game Developer restricts itself to the craft of making video games but I promise this is relevant. Guns are another tool where neutralizing rhetoric is deployed to downplay a tool's negative effects. I grew up in a gun-owning house in a gun-owning neighborhood in suburban Maryland. There were probably four handguns sitting in lockboxes across two rooms, a few rifles and shotguns in a vault in the basement, and one questionably legal World War I firearm tucked away in a closet. The NRA's mantra of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" was commonplace. A neighbor of mine laughed when I advocated for stronger regulations on gun ownership on the basis of "guns are meant to kill." "Guns aren't meant to kill," I recall him saying. "Cars can kill people. Does that mean cars are meant for killing?"His point boils down to this: The outcome of the tool's use is not worth considering when discussing regulation, only its potential use. A gun is a tool and the user has control over a tool is used.Cars are already tightly regulated and cost thousands of dollars, making his point moot, so we'll break down the construction of the claw hammer instead. We generally refer to hammers as being used to pound nails into wood, but I mainly use mine for hammering anchors into drywall because I'm a theater kid and was taught in crew to trust screws.In either case, the physical shape of the claw hammer dictates its most common purpose. The handle extends into a metal object that is blunt at one end, and clawed on the other. The design follows the swing of the human arm, transferring kinetic energy generated by the bicep, down the elbow, through the wrist, and into the blunt end.We also know that claw hammers are not useful for every form of transferring this energy. Variations on hammer design like the ball-peen hammer show how this basic purpose needs to be altered for different tasks. The shape and the material changes depending on the purpose. To sell more hammers, companies invest in better materials and affordances like rubber grips to make their use more comfortable.Like a firearm, hammers can be used as weapons. That same transference of force can be used to harm another living being. Video games sometimes place hammers in a players' loadout alongside guns, grenades, and weapons of war.Neither the hammer nor the firearm is "just" a tool. They are tools that are optimized for a purpose. We can study that purpose, and cast judgements about a tool's safety, merits, and need to be regulated based on that.But. The shape of the hammer is not an efficient way to inflict harm. This is supported by data from the FBI Crime Statistics survey, which gathers data filed by police departments that participate in assembling data. "Handgun" is the most common weapon used in homicides, and "knife/cutting instrument" ranks higher than "blunt objects." That's because handguns are an incredibly efficient means of wounding living beings.Let's break down the handgun the way we did the hammer. Handguns are assembled from an assortment of components that transfer the squeeze of a trigger into the strike of a hammer against a firing pin, which strikes the primer of a bullet's cartridge and sends it propelling out of the tube. Though some bullets seen in larger firearms are meant to penetrate metal, a handgun's bullet is envisioned and designed to cut through flesh.Image via Adobe Stock.These constraints make handguns efficient at few other tasks. In a pinch you could use the butt of a handgun as a hammer. I can't find any data about them being used for that purpose. I can only wander onto a construction site and count the number of firearms in toolboxes as a general sample size.Neither the hammer nor the firearm is "just" a tool. They are tools that are optimized for a purpose. We can study that purpose, and cast judgements about a tool's safety, merits, and need to be regulated based on that. Firearm advocates oppose this process through neutralizing language because it's difficult to dispute the correlation between the number of guns versus the number of murders and assaults with guns in a geographic area.Generative AI proponents sometimes regurgitate that language when defending this new technology. Because like the gun lobby, they don't want the purpose of generative AI decided by its outcomes, only its potential.What is that purpose? It may be the death of truth itself.Generative AI is broadly used to deceive through mimicryGenerative AI is a tool for deception.That's not what its biggest backers will tell you. It's broadly pitched as a tool for efficiency. But efficiency is hard to measure and easy to game. Deception is loud and obvious. Students are using it to cheat on papers. Scam calls with AI-generated voices are on the rise. The Department Human Health and Services published a study citing secretary Kennedy's unfounded health views that cites nonexistent studies, likely generated through AI. There was that cadre of YouTubers creating AI-generated fake movie trailers to attract clicks and make money off people who don't follow entertainment use. Apple marketed Apple Intelligence with advertisements showing people deceiving their neighbors, family, and coworkers. Activision Blizzard used generative AI to advertise games that don't exist.Now here's the rub: games—and all of entertainment—are also a form of deception. We use the phrase "magic circle" to describe how we attract players into our worlds. We use camera tricks, rendering technology, and even VO barks to simulate digital worlds. People engage with games, film, TV, books, and especially magic shows because on some level they want to be not just deceived, but lied to. AI has also been sold as technology that will let every player make their own perfect experience tailored for them by generating worlds, visual assets, and audio on the fly. But the best pitches I've heard for AI tend to "hide" the presence of the LLM, only mildly asking the player for prompts in order to accomplish behind-the-scenes computing tasks. These lies can make shared realities, not wholly distinct ones.That is the difference between telling lies to make virtual worlds and and telling lies to shape the real one. Lies in virtual worlds create shared realities. Lies in the real world tear them down.How appropriate that one such "shared reality," the Star Wars show Andor, recently warned us about the price we pay with treating AI as "just a tool." "The loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous," said the character Mon Mothma in a climactic speech decrying the whitewashing of a carefully executed genocide."When truth leaves us, when we let it slip away, when it is ripped from our hands, we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever monster screams the loudest."Game Developers Conference and Game Developer are sibling organizations under Informa.