On a Wednesday morning last month, I thought, just for a second, that AI was going to kill me. I had hailed a self-driving Waymo to bring me to a hacker house in Nob Hill, San Francisco. Just a few blocks from arrival, the car lurched toward the other lane--which was, thankfully, empty--and immediately jerked back. That sense of peril felt right for the moment. As I stepped into the cab, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell was delivering a speech criticizing President Donald Trump's economic policies, and in particular the administration's sweeping on-again, off-again tariffs. A day earlier, the White House had claimed that Chinese goods would be subject to overall levies as high as 245 percent when accounting for preexisting tariffs, and the AI giant Nvidia's stock had plummeted after the company reported that it expected to take a quarterly hit of more than 5 billion for selling to China.

Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. A pink flamingo is typically associated with a laid back lifestyle, but the way that these leggy birds with big personalities feed is anything but chill. When they dip their curved necks into the water, the birds use their feet, heads, and beaks to create swirling water tornadoes to efficiently group their prey together and slurp up them up. The findings are detailed in a study published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). "Flamingos are actually predators, they are actively looking for animals that are moving in the water, and the problem they face is how to concentrate these animals, to pull them together and feed," Victor Ortega Jiménez, a study co-author and biologist specializing in biomechanics at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement.

In the largest gathering of 2026 gubernatorial candidates to date, seven Democrats vying to lead California courted labor leaders on Monday, vowing to support pro-union agreements on housing and infrastructure projects, regulation of artificial intelligence, and government funding for university research. Throughout most of the hourlong event, the hundreds of union members inside the Sacramento hotel ballroom embraced the pro-labor pledges and speeches that dominated the candidates' remarks, though some boos rose from the crowd when former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa strayed from the other Democrats on stage. Villaraigosa was the only candidate to raise objections when asked if he would support providing state unemployment benefits to striking workers, saying it would depend on the nature and length of the labor action. Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023 vetoed a bill that would have provided that coverage, saying it would make the state's unemployment trust fund "vulnerable to insolvency." The Monday night event was part of a legislative conference held by the California Federation of Labor Unions and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, two of the most influential labor organizations in the state capital.

Companies like Flock and Axon sell suites of sensors--cameras, license plate readers, gunshot detectors, drones--and then offer AI tools to make sense of that ocean of data (at last year's conference I saw schmoozing between countless AI-for-police startups and the chiefs they sell to on the expo floor). Departments say these technologies save time, ease officer shortages, and help cut down on response times. Those sound like fine goals, but this pace of adoption raises an obvious question: Who makes the rules here? When does the use of AI cross over from efficiency into surveillance, and what type of transparency is owed to the public? In some cases, AI-powered police tech is already driving a wedge between departments and the communities they serve.

I recently found myself at a dinner in an upstairs room at a restaurant in San Francisco hosted by a venture capital firm. The after-dinner speaker was a tech veteran who, having sold his AI company for hundreds of millions of dollars, has now turned his hand to investing. He had a simple message for the assembled startup founders: the money you can make in AI isn't limited to the paltry market sizes of previous technology waves. You can replace the world's workers – which means you can capture their salaries. Replacing all human labour with AI sounds like the stuff of science fiction.

As the power of gene editing becomes more advanced, ideas that once seemed like science fiction are rapidly becoming a possibility. Now, a leading expert on human gene engineering has warned of what might happen if these technologies are not brought under control. From half-rat-half-mouse hybrids to primates with human genes, scientists will soon be able to combine the genes of different animals and humans to create'chimaeras'. But if limits aren't placed on research, scientists may soon go beyond combining existing animals to create new enhanced species and even new types of humans. That means animals and humans in the future could have abnormally boosted growth, powerful new senses, and even radically enhanced intelligence.

Robots zipping down footpaths may sound futuristic, but they are increasingly being put to work making deliveries around the world – though a legal minefield and cautious approach to new tech means they are largely absent in Australia. Retail and food businesses have been using robots for a variety of reasons, with hazard detection robots popping up in certain Woolworths stores and virtual waiters taking dishes from kitchens in understaffed restaurants to hungry diners in recent years. Overseas, in jurisdictions such as California, robots are far more visible in everyday life. Following on from the first wave of self-driving car trials in cities such as San Francisco, humans now also share footpaths with robots. Likened to lockers on wheels, companies including Serve Robotics and Coco have partnered with Uber Eats and Doordash, which have armies of robots travelling along footpaths in Los Angeles delivering takeaway meals and groceries.

The California Highway Patrol is deploying new patrol vehicles in hopes of cracking down on what the agency called "video game-styled" driving. The vehicles, 100 Dodge Durangos, will be paired with a fleet of Dodge Chargers and Ford Explorers to "observe the most reckless and dangerous behaviors without immediate detection," according to a CHP news release. "The new vehicles give our officers an important advantage," CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee said in a statement. "They will allow us to identify and stop drivers who are putting others at risk, while still showing a professional and visible presence once enforcement action is needed." The vehicles will be placed in various regions across the state starting this week.

The California State Bar's botched roll out of a new exam -- a move that the cash-strapped agency made in the hopes of saving money -- could ultimately end up costing it an additional 5.6 million. Leah T. Wilson, executive director of the State Bar, told state lawmakers at a Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday that the agency expects to pay around 3 million to offer free exams to test takers, an additional 2 million to book in-person testing sites in July, and 620,000 to return the test to its traditional system of multiple-choice questions in July. Wilson, who announced last week she will step down when her term ends this summer, revealed the costs during a 90-minute hearing called by Sen. Thomas J. Umberg (D-Orange), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to find out what went so "spectacularly wrong." Chaos ensued in February when thousands of test takers seeking to practice law in California sat for the new exam. Some reported they couldn't log into the exam because online testing platforms repeatedly crashed.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has refused one of Tesla's initial attempts to trademark the term "Robotaxi" because it believes the name is generic and already in use by other companies, according to a filing spotted by TechCrunch. Tesla was hoping to trademark the term in connection to its planned self-driving car service, but now it'll have to reply with more evidence to change the office's mind. The main issue outlined in the USPTO decision is that "Robotaxi" is "merely descriptive," as in its an already commonly used term. A robotaxi typically refers to the self-driving cars used in services like Waymo. As long as Silicon Valley has believed money could be made selling autonomous vehicles (and the rides you can take in them), the term has been in use.