Researchers unexpectedly discovered toxic airborne pollutants in Oklahoma. The image above depicts a field in Oklahoma. Credit: Shutterstock University of Colorado Boulder researchers made the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs) in the Western Hemisphere. Sometimes, scientific research feels a lot like solving a mystery. Scientists head into the field with a clear goal and a solid hypothesis, but then the data reveals something surprising. That’s when the real detective work begins. This is exactly what happened to a team from the University of Colorado Boulder during a recent field study in rural Oklahoma. They were using a state-of-the-art instrument to track how tiny particles form and grow in the air. But instead of just collecting expected data, they uncovered something completely new: the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs), a kind of toxic organic pollutant, in the Western Hemisphere. The teams findings were published in ACS Environmental Au. “It’s very exciting as a scientist to find something unexpected like this that we weren’t looking for,” said Daniel Katz, CU Boulder chemistry PhD student and lead author of the study. “We’re starting to learn more about this toxic, organic pollutant that we know is out there, and which we need to understand better.” MCCPs are currently under consideration for regulation by the Stockholm Convention, a global treaty to protect human health from long-standing and widespread chemicals. While the toxic pollutants have been measured in Antarctica and Asia, researchers haven’t been sure how to document them in the Western Hemisphere’s atmosphere until now. From Wastewater to Farmlands MCCPs are used in fluids for metal working and in the construction of PVC and textiles. They are often found in wastewater and as a result, can end up in biosolid fertilizer, also called sewage sludge, which is created when liquid is removed from wastewater in a treatment plant. In Oklahoma, researchers suspect the MCCPs they identified came from biosolid fertilizer in the fields near where they set up their instrument. “When sewage sludges are spread across the fields, those toxic compounds could be released into the air,” Katz said. “We can’t show directly that that’s happening, but we think it’s a reasonable way that they could be winding up in the air. Sewage sludge fertilizers have been shown to release similar compounds.” MCCPs little cousins, Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCPs), are currently regulated by the Stockholm Convention, and since 2009, by the EPA here in the United States. Regulation came after studies found the toxic pollutants, which travel far and last a long time in the atmosphere, were harmful to human health. But researchers hypothesize that the regulation of SCCPs may have increased MCCPs in the environment. “We always have these unintended consequences of regulation, where you regulate something, and then there’s still a need for the products that those were in,” said Ellie Browne, CU Boulder chemistry professor, CIRES Fellow, and co-author of the study. “So they get replaced by something.” Measurement of aerosols led to a new and surprising discovery Using a nitrate chemical ionization mass spectrometer, which allows scientists to identify chemical compounds in the air, the team measured air at the agricultural site 24 hours a day for one month. As Katz cataloged the data, he documented the different isotopic patterns in the compounds. The compounds measured by the team had distinct patterns, and he noticed new patterns that he immediately identified as different from the known chemical compounds. With some additional research, he identified them as chlorinated paraffins found in MCCPs. Katz says the makeup of MCCPs are similar to PFAS, long-lasting toxic chemicals that break down slowly over time. Known as “forever chemicals,” their presence in soils recently led the Oklahoma Senate to ban biosolid fertilizer. Now that researchers know how to measure MCCPs, the next step might be to measure the pollutants at different times throughout the year to understand how levels change each season. Many unknowns surrounding MCCPs remain, and there’s much more to learn about their environmental impacts. “We identified them, but we still don’t know exactly what they do when they are in the atmosphere, and they need to be investigated further,” Katz said. “I think it’s important that we continue to have governmental agencies that are capable of evaluating the science and regulating these chemicals as necessary for public health and safety.” Reference: “Real-Time Measurements of Gas-Phase Medium-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins Reveal Daily Changes in Gas-Particle Partitioning Controlled by Ambient Temperature” by Daniel John Katz, Bri Dobson, Mitchell Alton, Harald Stark, Douglas R. Worsnop, Manjula R. Canagaratna and Eleanor C. Browne, 5 June 2025, ACS Environmental Au. DOI: 10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00038 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

This is regulation greatly benefits all AI companies operating in or selling to the US b/c it means no additional cost for state compliance.But given how the impact of AI is unclear: is it not odd to already ban state regulation for *10 years*? ChatGPT is a mere 3 years old…Disclose.tv: NEW - Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" bans all 50 states from regulating AI for 10 years, centralizes control at the federal level, and integrates AI systems into key federal agencies.

In “The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the Race to Invent the Future,” Wall Street Journal reporter Keach Hagey examines our AI-obsessed moment through one of its key figures — Sam Altman, co-founder and CEO of OpenAI. Hagey begins with Altman’s Midwest childhood, then takes readers through his career at startup Loopt, accelerator Y Combinator, and now at OpenAI. She also sheds new light on the dramatic few days when Altman was fired, then quickly reinstated, as OpenAI’s CEO. Looking back at what OpenAI employees now call “the Blip,” Hagey said the failed attempt to oust Altman revealed that OpenAI’s complex structure — with a for-profit company controlled by a nonprofit board — is “not stable.” And with OpenAI largely backing down from plans to let the for-profit side take control, Hagey predicted that this “fundamentally unstable arrangement” will “continue to give investors pause.” Does that mean OpenAI could struggle to raise the funds it needs to keep going? Hagey replied that it could “absolutely” be an issue. “My research into Sam suggests that he might well be up to that challenge,” she said. “But success is not guaranteed.” In addition, Hagey’s biography (also available as an audiobook on Spotify) examines Altman’s politics, which she described as “pretty traditionally progressive” — making it a bit surprising that he’s struck massive infrastructure deals with the backing of the Trump administration. “But this is one area where, in some ways, I feel like Sam Altman has been born for this moment, because he is a deal maker and Trump is a deal maker,” Hagey said. “Trump respects nothing so much as a big deal with a big price tag on it, and that is what Sam Altman is really great at.” Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW In an interview with TechCrunch, Hagey also discussed Altman’s response to the book, his trustworthiness, and the AI “hype universe.” This interview has been edited for length and clarity.  You open the book by acknowledging some of the reservations that Sam Altman had about the project —  this idea that we tend to focus too much on individuals rather than organizations or broad movements, and also that it’s way too early to assess the impact of OpenAI. Did you share those concerns? Well, I don’t really share them, because this was a biography. This project was to look at a person, not an organization. And I also think that Sam Altman has set himself up in a way where it does matter what kind of moral choices he has made and what his moral formation has been, because the broad project of AI is really a moral project. That is the basis of OpenAI’s existence. So I think these are fair questions to ask about a person, not just an organization. As far as whether it’s too soon, I mean, sure, it’s definitely [early to] assess the entire impact of AI. But it’s been an extraordinary story for OpenAI — just so far, it’s already changed the stock market, it has changed the entire narrative of business. I’m a business journalist. We do nothing but talk about AI, all day long, every day. So in that way, I don’t think it’s too early. And despite those reservations, Altman did cooperate with you. Can you say more about what your relationship with him was like during the process of researching the book? Well, he was definitely not happy when he was informed about the book’s existence. And there was a long period of negotiation, frankly. In the beginning, I figured I was going to write this book without his help — what we call, in the business, a write-around profile. I’ve done plenty of those over my career, and I figured this would just be one more. Over time, as I made more and more calls, he opened up a little bit. And [eventually,] he was generous to sit down with me several times for long interviews and share his thoughts with me. Has he responded to the finished book at all? No. He did tweet about the project, about his decision to participate with it, but he was very clear that he was never going to read it. It’s the same way that I don’t like to watch my TV appearances or podcasts that I’m on. In the book, he’s described as this emblematic Silicon Valley figure. What do you think are the key characteristics that make him representative of the Valley and the tech industry? In the beginning, I think it was that he was young. The Valley really glorifies youth, and he was 19 years old when he started his first startup. You see him going into these meetings with people twice his age, doing deals with telecom operators for his first startup, and no one could get over that this kid was so smart. The other is that he is a once-in-a-generation fundraising talent, and that’s really about being a storyteller. I don’t think it’s an accident that you have essentially a salesman and a fundraiser at the top of the most important AI company today, That ties into one of the questions that runs through the book — this question about Altman’s trustworthiness. Can you say more about the concerns people seem to have about that? To what extent is he a trustworthy figure?  Well, he’s a salesman, so he’s really excellent at getting in a room and convincing people that he can see the future and that he has something in common with them. He gets people to share his vision, which is a rare talent. There are people who’ve watched that happen a bunch of times, who think, “Okay, what he says does not always map to reality,” and have, over time, lost trust in him. This happened both at his first startup and very famously at OpenAI, as well as at Y Combinator. So it is a pattern, but I think it’s a typical critique of people who have the salesman skill set. So it’s not necessarily that he’s particularly untrustworthy, but it’s part-and-parcel of being a salesman leading these important companies. I mean, there also are management issues that are detailed in the book, where he is not great at dealing with conflict, so he’ll basically tell people what they want to hear. That causes a lot of sturm-und-drang in the management ranks, and it’s a pattern. Something like that happened at Loopt, where the executives asked the board to replace him as CEO. And you saw it happen at OpenAI as well. You’ve touched on Altman’s firing, which was also covered in a book excerpt that was published in the Wall Street Journal. One of the striking things to me, looking back at it, was just how complicated everything was — all the different factions within the company, all the people who seemed pro-Altman one day and then anti-Altman the next. When you pull back from the details, what do you think is the bigger significance of that incident? The very big picture is that the nonprofit governance structure is not stable. You can’t really take investment from the likes of Microsoft and a bunch of other investors and then give them absolutely no say whatsoever in the governance of the company. That’s what they have tried to do, but I think what we saw in that firing is how power actually works in the world. When you have stakeholders, even if there’s a piece of paper that says they have no rights, they still have power. And when it became clear that everyone in the company was going to go to Microsoft if they didn’t reinstate Sam Altman, they reinstated Sam Altman. In the book, you take the story up to maybe the end of 2024. There have been all these developments since then, which you’ve continued to report on, including this announcement that actually, they’re not fully converting to a for-profit. How do you think that’s going to affect OpenAI going forward?  It’s going to make it harder for them to raise money, because they basically had to do an about-face. I know that the new structure going forward of the public benefit corporation is not exactly the same as the current structure of the for-profit — it is a little bit more investor friendly, it does clarify some of those things. But overall, what you have is a nonprofit board that controls a for-profit company, and that fundamentally unstable arrangement is what led to the so-called Blip. And I think you would continue to give investors pause, going forward, if they are going to have so little control over their investment. Obviously, OpenAI is still such a capital intensive business. If they have challenges raising more money, is that an existential question for the company? It absolutely could be. My research into Sam suggests that he might well be up to that challenge. But success is not guaranteed. Like you said, there’s a dual perspective in the book that’s partly about who Sam is, and partly about what that says about where AI is going from here. How did that research into his particular story shape the way you now look at these broader debates about AI and society? I went down a rabbit hole in the beginning of the book, [looking] into Sam’s father, Jerry Altman, in part because I thought it was striking how he’d been written out of basically every other thing that had ever been written about Sam Altman. What I found in this research was a very idealistic man who was, from youth, very interested in these public-private partnerships and the power of the government to set policy. He ended up having an impact on the way that affordable housing is still financed to this day. And when I traced Sam’s development, I saw that he has long believed that the government should really be the one that is funding and guiding AI research. In the early days of OpenAI, they went and tried to get the government to invest, as he’s publicly said, and it didn’t work out. But he looks back to these great mid-20th century labs like Xerox PARC and Bell Labs, which are private, but there was a ton of government money running through and supporting that ecosystem. And he says, “That’s the right way to do it.” Now I am watching daily as it seems like the United States is summoning the forces of state capitalism to get behind Sam Altman’s project to build these data centers, both in the United States and now there was just one last week announced in Abu Dhabi. This is a vision he has had for a very, very long time. My sense of the vision, as he presented it earlier, was one where, on the one hand, the government is funding these things and building this infrastructure, and on the other hand, the government is also regulating and guiding AI development for safety purposes. And it now seems like the path being pursued is one where they’re backing away from the safety side and doubling down on the government investment side. Absolutely. Isn’t it fascinating?  You talk about Sam as a political figure, as someone who’s had political ambitions at different times, but also somebody who has what are in many ways traditionally liberal political views while being friends with folks like — at least early on — Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. And he’s done a very good job of navigating the Trump administration. What do you think his politics are right now? I’m not sure his actual politics have changed, they are pretty traditionally progressive politics. Not completely — he’s been critical about things like cancel culture, but in general, he thinks the government is there to take tax revenue and solve problems. His success in the Trump administration has been fascinating because he has been able to find their one area of overlap, which is the desire to build a lot of data centers, and just double down on that and not talk about any other stuff. But this is one area where, in some ways, I feel like Sam Altman has been born for this moment, because he is a deal maker and Trump is a deal maker. Trump respects nothing so much as a big deal with a big price tag on it, and that is what Sam Altman is really great at. You open and close the book not just with Sam’s father, but with his family as a whole. What else is worth highlighting in terms of how his upbringing and family shapes who he is now? Well, you see both the idealism from his father and also the incredible ambition from his mother, who was a doctor, and had four kids and worked as a dermatologist. I think both of these things work together to shape him. They also had a more troubled marriage than I realized going into the book. So I do think that there’s some anxiety there that Sam himself is very upfront about, that he was a pretty anxious person for much of his life, until he did some meditation and had some experiences. And there’s his current family — he just had a baby and got married not too long ago. As a young gay man, growing up in the Midwest, he had to overcome some challenges, and I think those challenges both forged him in high school as a brave person who could stand up and take on a room as a public speaker, but also shaped his optimistic view of the world. Because, on that issue, I paint the scene of his wedding: That’s an unimaginable thing from the early ‘90s, or from the ‘80s when he was born. He’s watched society develop and progress in very tangible ways, and I do think that that has helped solidify his faith in progress. Something that I’ve found writing about AI is that the different visions being presented by people in the field can be so diametrically opposed. You have these wildly utopian visions, but also these warnings that AI could end the world. It gets so hyperbolic that it feels like people are not living in the same reality. Was that a challenge for you in writing the book? Well, I see those two visions — which feel very far apart — actually being part of the same vision, which is that AI is super important, and it’s going to completely transform everything. No one ever talks about the true opposite of that, which is, “Maybe this is going to be a cool enterprise tool, another way to waste time on the internet, and not quite change everything as much as everyone thinks.” So I see the doomers and the boomers feeding off each other and being part of the same sort of hype universe. As a journalist and as a biographer, you don’t necessarily come down on one side or the other — but actually, can you say where you come down on that? Well, I will say that I find myself using it a lot more recently, because it’s gotten a lot better. In the early stages, when I was researching the book, I was definitely a lot more skeptical of its transformative economic power. I’m less skeptical now, because I just use it a lot more.

Every few weeks, it seems like there’s a new headline about a lawyer getting in trouble for submitting filings containing, in the words of one judge, “bogus AI-generated research.” The details vary, but the throughline is the same: an attorney turns to a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT to help them with legal research (or worse, writing), the LLM hallucinates cases that don’t exist, and the lawyer is none the wiser until the judge or opposing counsel points out their mistake. In some cases, including an aviation lawsuit from 2023, attorneys have had to pay fines for submitting filings with AI-generated hallucinations. So why haven’t they stopped?The answer mostly comes down to time crunches, and the way AI has crept into nearly every profession. Legal research databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw have AI integrations now. For lawyers juggling big caseloads, AI can seem like an incredibly efficient assistant. Most lawyers aren’t necessarily using ChatGPT to write their filings, but they are increasingly using it and other LLMs for research. Yet many of these lawyers, like much of the public, don’t understand exactly what LLMs are or how they work. One attorney who was sanctioned in 2023 said he thought ChatGPT was a “super search engine.” It took submitting a filing with fake citations to reveal that it’s more like a random-phrase generator — one that could give you either correct information or convincingly phrased nonsense.Andrew Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School, argues many lawyers are using AI tools without incident, and the ones who get caught with fake citations are outliers. “I think that what we’re seeing now — although these problems of hallucination are real, and lawyers have to take it very seriously and be careful about it — doesn’t mean that these tools don’t have enormous possible benefits and use cases for the delivery of legal services,” Perlman said. Legal databases and research systems like Westlaw are incorporating AI services.In fact, 63 percent of lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters in 2024 said they’ve used AI in the past, and 12 percent said they use it regularly. Respondents said they use AI to write summaries of case law and to research “case law, statutes, forms or sample language for orders.” The attorneys surveyed by Thomson Reuters see it as a time-saving tool, and half of those surveyed said “exploring the potential for implementing AI” at work is their highest priority. “The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor’ not as a producer of documents,” one respondent said. But as plenty of recent examples have shown, the documents produced by AI aren’t always accurate, and in some cases aren’t real at all.RelatedIn one recent high-profile case, lawyers for journalist Tim Burke, who was arrested for publishing unaired Fox News footage in 2024, submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him on First Amendment grounds. After discovering that the filing included “significant misrepresentations and misquotations of supposedly pertinent case law and history,” Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida’s middle district, ordered the motion to be stricken from the case record. Mizelle found nine hallucinations in the document, according to the Tampa Bay Times.Mizelle ultimately let Burke’s lawyers, Mark Rasch and Michael Maddux, submit a new motion. In a separate filing explaining the mistakes, Rasch wrote that he “assumes sole and exclusive responsibility for these errors.” Rasch said he used the “deep research” feature on ChatGPT pro, which The Verge has previously tested with mixed results, as well as Westlaw’s AI feature.Rasch isn’t alone. Lawyers representing Anthropic recently admitted to using the company’s Claude AI to help write an expert witness declaration submitted as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Anthropic by music publishers. That filing included a citation with an “inaccurate title and inaccurate authors.” Last December, misinformation expert Jeff Hancock admitted he used ChatGPT to help organize citations in a declaration he submitted in support of a Minnesota law regulating deepfake use. Hancock’s filing included “two citation errors, popularly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’” and incorrectly listed authors for another citation. These documents do, in fact, matter — at least in the eyes of judges. In a recent case, a California judge presiding over a case against State Farm was initially swayed by arguments in a brief, only to find that the case law cited was completely made up. “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist,” Judge Michael Wilner wrote.Perlman said there are several less risky ways lawyers use generative AI in their work, including finding information in large tranches of discovery documents, reviewing briefs or filings, and brainstorming possible arguments or possible opposing views. “I think in almost every task, there are ways in which generative AI can be useful — not a substitute for lawyers’ judgment, not a substitute for the expertise that lawyers bring to the table, but in order to supplement what lawyers do and enable them to do their work better, faster, and cheaper,” Perlman said.But like anyone using AI tools, lawyers who rely on them to help with legal research and writing need to be careful to check the work they produce, Perlman said. Part of the problem is that attorneys often find themselves short on time — an issue he says existed before LLMs came into the picture. “Even before the emergence of generative AI, lawyers would file documents with citations that didn’t really address the issue that they claimed to be addressing,” Perlman said. “It was just a different kind of problem. Sometimes when lawyers are rushed, they insert citations, they don’t properly check them; they don’t really see if the case has been overturned or overruled.” (That said, the cases do at least typically exist.)Another, more insidious problem is the fact that attorneys — like others who use LLMs to help with research and writing — are too trusting of what AI produces. “I think many people are lulled into a sense of comfort with the output, because it appears at first glance to be so well crafted,” Perlman said.Alexander Kolodin, an election lawyer and Republican state representative in Arizona, said he treats ChatGPT as a junior-level associate. He’s also used ChatGPT to help write legislation. In 2024, he included AI text in part of a bill on deepfakes, having the LLM provide the “baseline definition” of what deepfakes are and then “I, the human, added in the protections for human rights, things like that it excludes comedy, satire, criticism, artistic expression, that kind of stuff,” Kolodin told The Guardian at the time. Kolodin said he “may have” discussed his use of ChatGPT with the bill’s main Democratic cosponsor but otherwise wanted it to be “an Easter egg” in the bill. The bill passed into law. Kolodin — who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2020 for his involvement in lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election — has also used ChatGPT to write first drafts of amendments, and told The Verge he uses it for legal research as well. To avoid the hallucination problem, he said, he just checks the citations to make sure they’re real.“You don’t just typically send out a junior associate’s work product without checking the citations,” said Kolodin. “It’s not just machines that hallucinate; a junior associate could read the case wrong, it doesn’t really stand for the proposition cited anyway, whatever. You still have to cite-check it, but you have to do that with an associate anyway, unless they were pretty experienced.”Kolodin said he uses both ChatGPT’s pro “deep research” tool and the LexisNexis AI tool. Like Westlaw, LexisNexis is a legal research tool primarily used by attorneys. Kolodin said that in his experience, it has a higher hallucination rate than ChatGPT, which he says has “gone down substantially over the past year.” AI use among lawyers has become so prevalent that in 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first guidance on attorneys’ use of LLMs and other AI tools. Lawyers who use AI tools “have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature” of generative AI, the opinion reads. The guidance advises lawyers to “acquire a general understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools” they use — or, in other words, to not assume that an LLM is a “super search engine.” Attorneys should also weigh the confidentiality risks of inputting information relating to their cases into LLMs and consider whether to tell their clients about their use of LLMs and other AI tools, it states.Perlman is bullish on lawyers’ use of AI. “I do think that generative AI is going to be the most impactful technology the legal profession has ever seen and that lawyers will be expected to use these tools in the future,” he said. “I think that at some point, we will stop worrying about the competence of lawyers who use these tools and start worrying about the competence of lawyers who don’t.”Others, including one of the judges who sanctioned lawyers for submitting a filing full of AI-generated hallucinations, are more skeptical. “Even with recent advances,” Wilner wrote, “no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.”See More:

LUBBOCK — Every winter, after the sea of cotton has been harvested in the South Plains and the ground looks barren, technicians with the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District check the water levels in nearly 75,000 wells across 16 counties. For years, their measurements have shown what farmers and water conservationists fear most—the Ogallala Aquifer, an underground water source that’s the lifeblood of the South Plains agriculture industry, is running dry. That’s because of a century-old law called the rule of capture. The rule is simple: If you own the land above an aquifer in Texas, the water underneath is yours. You can use as much as you want, as long as it’s not wasted or taken maliciously. The same applies to your neighbor. If they happen to use more water than you, then that’s just bad luck. To put it another way, landowners can mostly pump as much water as they choose without facing liability to surrounding landowners whose wells might be depleted as a result. Following the Dust Bowl—and to stave off catastrophe—state lawmakers created groundwater conservation districts in 1949 to protect what water is left. But their power to restrict landowners is limited. “The mission is to save as much water possible for as long as possible, with as little impact on private property rights as possible,” said Jason Coleman, manager for the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District. “How do you do that? It’s a difficult task.” A 1953 map of the wells in Lubbock County hangs in the office of the groundwater district. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] Rapid population growth, climate change, and aging water infrastructure all threaten the state’s water supply. Texas does not have enough water to meet demand if the state is stricken with a historic drought, according to the Texas Water Development Board, the state agency that manages Texas’ water supply. Lawmakers want to invest in every corner to save the state’s water. This week, they reached a historic $20 billion deal on water projects. High Plains Underground Water District General Manager Jason Coleman stands in the district’s meeting room on May 21 in Lubbock. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] But no one wants to touch the rule of capture. In a state known for rugged individualism, politically speaking, reforming the law is tantamount to stripping away freedoms. “There probably are opportunities to vest groundwater districts with additional authority,” said Amy Hardberger, director for the Texas Tech University Center for Water Law and Policy. “I don’t think the political climate is going to do that.” State Sen. Charles Perry, a Lubbock Republican, and Rep. Cody Harris, a Palestine Republican, led the effort on water in Austin this year. Neither responded to requests for comment. Carlos Rubinstein, a water expert with consulting firm RSAH2O and a former chairman of the water development board, said the rule has been relied upon so long that it would be near impossible to undo the law. “I think it’s better to spend time working within the rules,” Rubinstein said. “And respect the rule of capture, yet also recognize that, in and of itself, it causes problems.” Even though groundwater districts were created to regulate groundwater, the law effectively stops them from doing so, or they risk major lawsuits. The state water plan, which spells out how the state’s water is to be used, acknowledges the shortfall. Groundwater availability is expected to decline by 25% by 2070, mostly due to reduced supply in the Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. Together, the aquifers stretch across West Texas and up through the Panhandle. By itself, the Ogallala has an estimated three trillion gallons of water. Though the overwhelming majority in Texas is used by farmers. It’s expected to face a 50% decline by 2070. Groundwater is 54% of the state’s total water supply and is the state’s most vulnerable natural resource. It’s created by rainfall and other precipitation, and seeps into the ground. Like surface water, groundwater is heavily affected by ongoing droughts and prolonged heat waves. However, the state has more say in regulating surface water than it does groundwater. Surface water laws have provisions that cut supply to newer users in a drought and prohibit transferring surface water outside of basins. Historically, groundwater has been used by agriculture in the High Plains. However, as surface water evaporates at a quicker clip, cities and businesses are increasingly interested in tapping the underground resource. As Texas’ population continues to grow and surface water declines, groundwater will be the prize in future fights for water. In many ways, the damage is done in the High Plains, a region that spans from the top of the Panhandle down past Lubbock. The Ogallala Aquifer runs beneath the region, and it’s faced depletion to the point of no return, according to experts. Simply put: The Ogallala is not refilling to keep up with demand. “It’s a creeping disaster,” said Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment. “It isn’t like you wake up tomorrow and nobody can pump anymore. It’s just happening slowly, every year.” [Image: Yuriko Schumacher/The Texas Tribune] Groundwater districts and the law The High Plains Water District was the first groundwater district created in Texas. Over a protracted multi-year fight, the Legislature created these new local government bodies in 1949, with voter approval, enshrining the new stewards of groundwater into the state Constitution. If the lawmakers hoped to embolden local officials to manage the troves of water under the soil, they failed. There are areas with groundwater that don’t have conservation districts. Each groundwater districts has different powers. In practice, most water districts permit wells and make decisions on spacing and location to meet the needs of the property owner. The one thing all groundwater districts have in common: They stop short of telling landowners they can’t pump water. In the seven decades since groundwater districts were created, a series of lawsuits have effectively strangled groundwater districts. Even as water levels decline from use and drought, districts still get regular requests for new wells. They won’t say no out of fear of litigation. The field technician coverage area is seen in Nathaniel Bibbs’ office at the High Plains Underground Water District. Bibbs is a permit assistant for the district. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] “You have a host of different decisions to make as it pertains to management of groundwater,” Coleman said. “That list has grown over the years.” The possibility of lawsuits makes groundwater districts hesitant to regulate usage or put limitations on new well permits. Groundwater districts have to defend themselves in lawsuits, and most lack the resources to do so. A well spacing guide is seen in Nathaniel Bibbs’ office. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] “The law works against us in that way,” Hardberger, with Texas Tech University, said. “It means one large tool in our toolbox, regulation, is limited.” The most recent example is a lawsuit between the Braggs Farm and the Edwards Aquifer Authority. The farm requested permits for two pecan orchards in Medina County, outside San Antonio. The authority granted only one and limited how much water could be used based on state law. It wasn’t an arbitrary decision. The authority said it followed the statute set by the Legislature to determine the permit. “That’s all they were guaranteed,” said Gregory Ellis, the first general manager of the authority, referring to the water available to the farm. The Braggs family filed a takings lawsuit against the authority. This kind of claim can be filed when any level of government—including groundwater districts—takes private property for public use without paying for the owner’s losses. Braggs won. It is the only successful water-related takings claim in Texas, and it made groundwater laws murkier. It cost the authority $4.5 million. “I think it should have been paid by the state Legislature,” Ellis said. “They’re the ones who designed that permitting system. But that didn’t happen.” An appeals court upheld the ruling in 2013, and the Texas Supreme Court denied petitions to consider appeals. However, the state’s supreme court has previously suggested the Legislature could enhance the powers of the groundwater districts and regulate groundwater like surface water, just as many other states have done. While the laws are complicated, Ellis said the fundamental rule of capture has benefits. It has saved Texas’ legal system from a flurry of lawsuits between well owners. “If they had said ‘Yes, you can sue your neighbor for damaging your well,’ where does it stop?” Ellis asked. “Everybody sues everybody.” Coleman, the High Plains district’s manager, said some people want groundwater districts to have more power, while others think they have too much. Well owners want restrictions for others, but not on them, he said. “You’re charged as a district with trying to apply things uniformly and fairly,” Coleman said. Can’t reverse the past Two tractors were dropping seeds around Walt Hagood’s farm as he turned on his irrigation system for the first time this year. He didn’t plan on using much water. It’s too precious. The cotton farm stretches across 2,350 acres on the outskirts of Wolfforth, a town 12 miles southwest of Lubbock. Hagood irrigates about 80 acres of land, and prays that rain takes care of the rest. Walt Hagood drives across his farm on May 12, in Wolfforth. Hagood utilizes “dry farming,” a technique that relies on natural rainfall. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] “We used to have a lot of irrigated land with adequate water to make a crop,” Hagood said. “We don’t have that anymore.” The High Plains is home to cotton and cattle, multi-billion-dollar agricultural industries. The success is in large part due to the Ogallala. Since its discovery, the aquifer has helped farms around the region spring up through irrigation, a way for farmers to water their crops instead of waiting for rain that may not come. But as water in the aquifer declines, there are growing concerns that there won’t be enough water to support agriculture in the future. At the peak of irrigation development, more than 8.5 million acres were irrigated in Texas. About 65% of that was in the High Plains. In the decades since the irrigation boom, High Plains farmers have resorted to methods that might save water and keep their livelihoods afloat. They’ve changed their irrigation systems so water is used more efficiently. They grow cover crops so their soil is more likely to soak up rainwater. Some use apps to see where water is needed so it’s not wasted. A furrow irrigation is seen at Walt Hagood’s cotton farm. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] Farmers who have not changed their irrigation systems might not have a choice in the near future. It can take a week to pump an inch of water in some areas from the aquifer because of how little water is left. As conditions change underground, they are forced to drill deeper for water. That causes additional problems. Calcium can build up, and the water is of poorer quality. And when the water is used to spray crops through a pivot irrigation system, it’s more of a humidifier as water quickly evaporates in the heat. According to the groundwater district’s most recent management plan, 2 million acres in the district use groundwater for irrigation. About 95% of water from the Ogallala is used for irrigated agriculture. The plan states that the irrigated farms “afford economic stability to the area and support a number of other industries.” The state water plan shows groundwater supply is expected to decline, and drought won’t be the only factor causing a shortage. Demand for municipal use outweighs irrigation use, reflecting the state’s future growth. In Region O, which is the South Plains, water for irrigation declines by 2070 while demand for municipal use rises because of population growth in the region. Coleman, with the High Plains groundwater district, often thinks about how the aquifer will hold up with future growth. There are some factors at play with water planning that are nearly impossible to predict and account for, Coleman said. Declining surface water could make groundwater a source for municipalities that didn’t depend on it before. Regions known for having big, open patches of land, like the High Plains, could be attractive to incoming businesses. People could move to the country and want to drill a well, with no understanding of water availability. The state will continue to grow, Coleman said, and all the incoming businesses and industries will undoubtedly need water. “We could say ‘Well, it’s no one’s fault. We didn’t know that factory would need 20,000 acre-feet of water a year,” Coleman said. “It’s not happening right now, but what’s around the corner?” Coleman said this puts agriculture in a tenuous position. The region is full of small towns that depend on agriculture and have supporting businesses, like cotton gins, equipment and feed stores, and pesticide and fertilizer sprayers. This puts pressure on the High Plains water district, along with the two regional water planning groups in the region, to keep agriculture alive. “Districts are not trying to reduce pumping down to a sustainable level,” said Mace with the Meadows Foundation. “And I don’t fault them for that, because doing that is economic devastation in a region with farmers.” Hagood, the cotton farmer, doesn’t think reforming groundwater rights is the way to solve it. What’s done is done, he said. “Our U.S. Constitution protects our private property rights, and that’s what this is all about,” Hagood said. “Any time we have a regulation and people are given more authority, it doesn’t work out right for everybody.” Rapid population growth, climate change, and aging water infrastructure all threaten the state’s water supply. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] What can be done The state water plan recommends irrigation conservation as a strategy. It’s also the least costly water management method. But that strategy is fraught. Farmers need to irrigate in times of drought, and telling them to stop can draw criticism. In Eastern New Mexico, the Ogallala Land and Water Conservancy, a nonprofit organization, has been retiring irrigation wells. Landowners keep their water rights, and the organization pays them to stop irrigating their farms. Landowners get paid every year as part of the voluntary agreement, and they can end it at any point. Ladona Clayton, executive director of the organization, said they have been criticized, with their efforts being called a “war” and “land grab.” They also get pushback on why the responsibility falls on farmers. She said it’s because of how much water is used for irrigation. They have to be aggressive in their approach, she said. The aquifer supplies water to the Cannon Air Force Base. “We don’t want them to stop agricultural production,” Clayton said. “But for me to say it will be the same level that irrigation can support would be untrue.” There is another possible lifeline that people in the High Plains are eyeing as a solution: the Dockum Aquifer. It’s a minor aquifer that underlies part of the Ogallala, so it would be accessible to farmers and ranchers in the region. The High Plains Water District also oversees this aquifer. If it seems too good to be true—that the most irrigated part of Texas would just so happen to have another abundant supply of water flowing underneath—it’s because there’s a catch. The Dockum is full of extremely salty brackish water. Some counties can use the water for irrigation and drinking water without treatment, but it’s unusable in others. According to the groundwater district, a test well in Lubbock County pulled up water that was as salty as seawater. Rubinstein, the former water development board chairman, said there are pockets of brackish groundwater in Texas that haven’t been tapped yet. It would be enough to meet the needs on the horizon, but it would also be very expensive to obtain and use. A landowner would have to go deeper to get it, then pump the water over a longer distance. “That costs money, and then you have to treat it on top of that,” Rubinstein said. “But, it is water.” Landowners have expressed interest in using desalination, a treatment method to lower dissolved salt levels. Desalination of produced and brackish water is one of the ideas that was being floated around at the Legislature this year, along with building a pipeline to move water across the state. Hagood, the farmer, is skeptical. He thinks whatever water they move could get used up before it makes it all the way to West Texas. There is always brackish groundwater. Another aquifer brings the chance of history repeating—if the Dockum aquifer is treated so its water is usable, will people drain it, too? Hagood said there would have to be limits. Disclosure: Edwards Aquifer Authority and Texas Tech University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here. This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune, a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

DeepSeek's R1 update, plus the rest of the AI news this week. Credit: Thomas Fuller / SOPA Images / LightRocket / Getty Images This week, DeepSeek released an updated version of its R1 model on HuggingFace, reigniting the open-source versus closed-source competition. The updated version, called DeekSeek-R1-0528, has 685 billion parameters, an upgrade from January's version, which had 671 billion. Unlike OpenAI and Google's models, which are famously closed-source, DeepSeek's model weights are publicly available. According to the benchmarks, the R1-0528 update has improved reasoning and inference capabilities and is closing the gap with OpenAI's o3 and Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro. DeepSeek also introduced a distilled version of R1-0528 using Alibaba's Qwen3 8B model. This is an example of a lightweight model that is less capable but also requires less computing power. DeepSeek-R1-0528-Qwen3-8B outperforms both Google's latest lightweight model Gemini-2.5-Flash-Thinking-0520 and OpenAI's o3-mini in certain benchmarks. But the bigger deal is that DeekSeek's distilled model can reportedly run on a single GPU, according to TechCrunch. You May Also Like To… distill all this information, the Chinese rival is catching up to its U.S. competitors with an open-weight approach that's cheaper and more accessible. Plus, DeepSeek continues to prove that AI models may not require as much computing power as OpenAI, Google, and other AI heavyweights currently use. Suffice to say, watch this space.That said, DeepSeek's models also have their drawbacks. According to one AI developer (via TechCrunch), the new DeepSeek update is even more censored than its previous version when it comes to criticism of the Chinese government. Of course, a lot more happened in the AI world over the past few days. After last week's parade of AI events from Google, Anthropic, and Microsoft, this week was lighter on product and feature news. That's one reason DeepSeek's R1 update captured the AI world's attention this week. In other AI news, Anthropic finally gets voice mode, AI influencers go viral, Anthropic's CEO warns of mass layoffs, and an AI-generated kangaroo. Google's Veo 3 takes the internet by stormOn virtually every social media platform, users are freaking out about the new Veo 3, Google's new AI video model. The results are impressive, and we're already seeing short films made entirely with Veo 3. Not bad for a product that came out 11 days ago. Not to be outdone by AI video artists, a reporter from The Wall Street Journal made a short film about herself and a robot using Veo 3.Mashable's Tech Editor Timothy Werth recapped Veo's big week and had a simple conclusion: We're so cooked.More AI product news: Claude's new voice mode and the beginning of the agentic browser eraAfter last week's barrage, this week was lighter on the volume of AI news. But what was announced this week is no less significant.  Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! Anthropic finally introduced its own voice mode for Claude to compete with ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini. The feature is currently in beta on mobile for the Claude app and will even be available to free plans with a limit of 20 to 30 voice conversations per day. Anthropic says you can ask Claude to summarize your calendar or read documents out loud. Paying subscribers can connect to Google Workspace for Calendar, Gmail, and Docs access. OpenAI is exploring the ability to sign into third-party apps with ChatGPT. We don't know much yet, but the company posted an interest form on its site for developers using Codex, its engineering agent, to add this capability to their own apps. It may not sound like a big deal, but it basically means users could easily link their personalized ChatGPT memories and settings to third-party apps, much like the way it works when you sign into a new app with your Google account.Opera announced a new agentic AI browser called Neon. "Much more than a place to view web pages, Neon can browse with you or for you, take action, and help you get things done," the announcement read. That includes a chatbot interface within the browser and the ability to fill in web forms for tasks like booking trips and shopping. The announcement, which included a promo video of a humanoid robot browsing the robot, which is scant on details but says Neon will be a "premium subscription product" and has a waitlist to sign up.The browser has suddenly become a new frontier for agentic AI, now that it's capable of automating web search tasks. Perplexity is working on a similar tool called Comet, and The Browser Company pivoted from its Arc browser to a more AI-centric browser called Dia. All of this is happening while Google might be forced to sell off Chrome, which OpenAI has kindly offered to take off its hands. Dario Amodei's prediction about AI replacing entry-level jobs is already starting to happenAnthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned in an interview with Axios that AI could "wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs." Amodei's predictions might be spot on because a new study from VC firm SignalFire found that hiring for entry-level jobs is down to 7 percent from 25 percent in the previous year. Some of that is due to changes in the economic climate, but AI is definitely a factor since firms are opting to automate the less-technical aspects of work that would've been taken on by new hires.  Related Stories The latest in AI culture: That AI-generated kangaroo, Judge Judy, and everything elseGoogle wants you to know its AI overviews reach 1.5 billion people a month. They probably don't want you to know AI Overviews still struggles to count, spell, and know what year it is. As Mashable's Tim Marcin put it, would AI Overviews pass concussion protocol?The proposal of a 10-year ban on states regulating AI is pretty unpopular, according to a poll from Common Sense Media. The survey found that 57 percent of respondents opposed the moratorium, including half of the Republican respondents. As Mashable's Rebecca Ruiz reported, "the vast majority of respondents, regardless of their political affiliation, agreed that Congress shouldn't ban states from enacting or enforcing their own youth online safety and privacy laws."In the private sector, The New York Times signed a licensing deal with Amazon to allow their editorial content to be used for Amazon's AI models. The details are unclear, but from the outside, this seems like a change of tune from the Times, which is currently suing OpenAI for copyright infringement for allegedly using its content to train its models. That viral video of an emotional support kangaroo holding a plane ticket and being denied boarding? It's AI-generated, of course. Slightly more obvious, but no less creepy is another viral trend of using AI to turn public figures like Emmanuel Macron and Judge Judy into babies. These are strange AI-slop-infested times we're living in. AI has some positive uses too. This week, we learned about a new humanoid robot from HuggingFace called HopeJr (with engineering by The Robot Studio), which could be available for sale later this year for just $3,000.And to end this recap on a high note, the nonprofit Colossal Foundation has developed an AI algorithm to detect the bird calls of the near-extinct tooth-billed pigeon. Also known as the "little dodo," the tooth-billed pigeon is Samoa's national bird, and scientists are using the bioacoustic algorithm to locate and protect them. Want to get the latest AI news, from new product features to viral trends? Check back next week for another AI news recap, and in the meantime, follow @cecily_mauran and @mashable for more news.Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems. Topics OpenAI DeepSeek Cecily Mauran Tech Reporter Cecily is a tech reporter at Mashable who covers AI, Apple, and emerging tech trends. Before getting her master's degree at Columbia Journalism School, she spent several years working with startups and social impact businesses for Unreasonable Group and B Lab. Before that, she co-founded a startup consulting business for emerging entrepreneurial hubs in South America, Europe, and Asia. You can find her on X at @cecily_mauran.

From August 23rd - September 14th, 2023 (Kodiak, Alaska to Seward, Alaska), NOAA Ocean Exploration conducted Seascape Alaska 5: Gulf of Alaska Remotely Operated Vehicle Exploration and Mapping (EX2306), a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and mapping expedition to the Gulf of Alaska on NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer. Operations during this 23-day expedition included the completion of 19 successful remotely operated vehicle (ROV) dives, which were conducted in water depths ranging from 253.1 m to 4261.5 m for approximately 87 hours of bottom time and resulted in the collection of 383 samples. EX2306 also collected more than 28,000 sq. km of seafloor bathymetry and associated water column data using an EM 304 multibeam sonar. These images were captured on dives that were included in the source data for the How Little We’ve Seen: A Visual Coverage Estimate of the Deep Seafloor paper. They are good general reference imagery for the type of deep ocean observations captured by ROVs.(Image Courtesy of NOAA Ocean Exploration)NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsKey Takeaways on Deep Ocean Exploration: We have visually explored less than 0.001 percent of the deep sea floor. To put that in perspective, 66 percent of the planet is deep ocean, and 99.999 percent of that ocean is unknown to us.Like ecosystems on land, the sea has a complex food web. Most of life in the sea depends on detritus, mostly phytoplankton, falling down from the surface, something called “marine snow.”Organisms that live in shallow water absorb carbon dioxide and take that with them when they sink to the bottom, often to be buried in deep-sea sediment. This is known as a carbon sink. It’s important to know the rates at which this happens, because this partially offsets the carbon we’re adding to the atmosphere. It’s been said many times that we know more about the moon than our own ocean. But is it really true that we’ve explored only a tiny portion of the sea?Katy Croff Bell wondered about this, too. Bell is an oceanographer and the founder of the Ocean Discovery League. She knew that Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and others have been operating deep-sea submersibles like Alvin for decades, and there are facilities in 20 or so places around the world doing deep-sea research. But how much of the sea floor have these projects actually explored visually, not just mapped or sampled?Mapping the Deep OceanBell started looking up dive data and doing some math. “I stayed up way too late and came up with a very, very tiny number,” she recalls. She didn’t believe her own results and got everyone she could think of to double-check her math. But the results held. Over the next four years, she and her team compiled a database of dives from organizations and individuals around the world, and the data support her initial estimate. The number is indeed tiny. It turns out that we have visually explored less than 0.001 percent of the deep sea floor. To put that in perspective, 66 percent of the planet is deep ocean, and 99.999 percent of that ocean is unknown to us. Bell and her team published their findings in May 2025 in the journal Science Advances.Why Deep Sea Exploration MattersFrom July 14 - July 25, 2023, NOAA Ocean Exploration and partners conducted the third in a series of Seascape Alaska expeditions on NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer. Over the course of 12 days at sea, the team conducted 6 full remotely operated vehicle (ROV) dives, mapped nearly 16,000 square kilometers (6,180 square miles), and collected a variety of biological and geological samples. When combined with numerous biological and geological observations, data from the Seascape Alaska 3: Aleutians Remotely Operated Vehicle Exploration and Mapping expedition will help to establish a baseline assessment of the ocean environment, increase understanding of marine life and habitats to inform management decisions, and increase public awareness of ocean issues. These images were captured on dives that were included in the source data for the How Little We’ve Seen: A Visual Coverage Estimate of the Deep Seafloor paper. They are good general reference imagery for the type of deep ocean observations captured by ROVs. (Image Courtesy of NOAA Ocean Exploration)About 26 percent of the ocean has been mapped with multi-beam sonar, explains Bell, and that gives us an idea of the shape of the ocean floor. But that’s like looking at a topographical map of an area you’re planning to hike. You know where the hills and valleys are, but you have no idea what kind of plants and animals you’re likely to encounter. If you want to understand the deep ocean, you need to get down there and see what kind of rocks and sediment are there, learn about the corals and sponges and other animals living there, she says. Samples of ocean life are helpful, but they do not give anything like a full picture of the life-forms in the deep sea, and more importantly, they tell you little about the complex ecosystems they’re a part of. But when you put mapping and sampling together with visual data, plus data about temperature, depths, and salinity, Bell says, you start to build a picture of what a given ocean habitat is like, and eventually, the role of that habitat in the global ocean system.The Deep-Sea "Snow" That Provides LifeFrom August 23rd - September 14th, 2023 (Kodiak, Alaska to Seward, Alaska), NOAA Ocean Exploration conducted Seascape Alaska 5: Gulf of Alaska Remotely Operated Vehicle Exploration and Mapping (EX2306), a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and mapping expedition to the Gulf of Alaska on NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer. Operations during this 23-day expedition included the completion of 19 successful remotely operated vehicle (ROV) dives, which were conducted in water depths ranging from 253.1 m to 4261.5 m for approximately 87 hours of bottom time and resulted in the collection of 383 samples. EX2306 also collected more than 28,000 sq. km of seafloor bathymetry and associated water column data using an EM 304 multibeam sonar. These images were captured on dives that were included in the source data for the How Little We’ve Seen: A Visual Coverage Estimate of the Deep Seafloor paper. They are good general reference imagery for the type of deep ocean observations captured by ROVs. (Image Courtesy of NOAA Ocean Exploration)Like ecosystems on land, the sea has a complex food web. Most of life in the sea depends on detritus, mostly phytoplankton, falling down from the surface, something called “marine snow,” explains James Douglass, an ecologist at Florida Gulf Coast University who studies life on the sea bed. This snow of nutrients is eaten by what are called suspension feeders, including filter feeders, such as sponges and corals, which have tentacles or basket-like appendages to trap the snow. Then other organisms, such as crabs and worms, feed on these creatures. The crabs and worms, in turn, are eaten by fish. Deposit feeders, such as the sea pig, a type of sea cucumber that “trundles across the bottom eating mud all day,” add to the already huge variety of life, Douglass says. The types of organisms you have in the deep sea depend on how deep it is, whether the sea floor is rocky or muddy, how quickly currents bring food, and whether there are underwater hot springs or cold seeps, or other sources of extra energy, says Douglass. So yes, it’s a complicated world down there, and there’s an awful lot we don’t yet know.Deep-Sea Ecosystems and Climate Change From July 14 - July 25, 2023, NOAA Ocean Exploration and partners conducted the third in a series of Seascape Alaska expeditions on NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer. Over the course of 12 days at sea, the team conducted 6 full remotely operated vehicle (ROV) dives, mapped nearly 16,000 square kilometers (6,180 square miles), and collected a variety of biological and geological samples. When combined with numerous biological and geological observations, data from the Seascape Alaska 3: Aleutians Remotely Operated Vehicle Exploration and Mapping expedition will help to establish a baseline assessment of the ocean environment, increase understanding of marine life and habitats to inform management decisions, and increase public awareness of ocean issues. These images were captured on dives that were included in the source data for the How Little We’ve Seen: A Visual Coverage Estimate of the Deep Seafloor paper. They are good general reference imagery for the type of deep ocean observations captured by ROVs. (Image Courtesy of NOAA Ocean Exploration)Learning about ocean ecosystems is extremely valuable as basic science. But it has a more urgent purpose as well. Though we often think of the land and the sea as two completely separate places, they are intertwined in many significant ways. The ocean has absorbed 90 percent of the excess heat and 30 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by humans, says Bell. “But we don’t really have a good understanding of how this is going to impact deep-sea ecosystems, and those ecosystems play a vital role in the process of carbon sequestration,” she says.When it comes to climate change, the deep sea has a lot to teach us. In parts of the deep sea, Douglass explains, nothing disturbs the layers of sediment that are deposited slowly over the course of thousands, even millions of years. Geologists can interpret the layers and study the fossils preserved in them to get an understanding of what the conditions of the planet were like in the distant past, similar to the way climatologists study Antarctic ice cores. “We've learned things about how the ocean ecosystem changes when climate changes. We've learned that some worrying things can happen under certain climate conditions in the deep ocean,” Douglass says. “For example, the ocean can become less oxygenated, which would be a catastrophic threat to deep-sea life.”The Deep Ocean and Climate RegulationAnd, of course, there’s carbon dioxide. “The deep sea is not just a passive record of what happened to the climate; it’s involved in regulating climate,” Douglass says. Organisms that live in shallow water absorb carbon dioxide and take that with them when they sink to the bottom, often to be buried in deep-sea sediment. This is known as a carbon sink. Douglass says it’s very important to know the rates at which this happens, because this partially offsets the carbon we’re adding to the atmosphere. “Deep-sea carbon storage is a huge element in our understanding of the planet's ability to regulate climate,” he adds.If we are to truly understand the way the entire planet works, we need to understand the deep sea and its complex ecosystems as well as life on land and in the shallows. And to do that, Bell says, we need to get down there and look.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Science Advances. How little we’ve seen: A visual coverage estimate of the deep seafloorAvery Hurt is a freelance science journalist. In addition to writing for Discover, she writes regularly for a variety of outlets, both print and online, including National Geographic, Science News Explores, Medscape, and WebMD. She’s the author of Bullet With Your Name on It: What You Will Probably Die From and What You Can Do About It, Clerisy Press 2007, as well as several books for young readers. Avery got her start in journalism while attending university, writing for the school newspaper and editing the student non-fiction magazine. Though she writes about all areas of science, she is particularly interested in neuroscience, the science of consciousness, and AI–interests she developed while earning a degree in philosophy.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In