In its early days, the AI initiative known as Project Maven had its fair share of skeptics at the Pentagon. Today, many of them are true believers. The rise of AI warfare speaks to the biggest moral and practical question there is: Who--or what--gets to decide to take a human life? And who bears that cost? In 2018, more than 3,000 Google workers protested the company's involvement in "the business of war" after finding out the company was part of Project Maven, then a nascent Pentagon effort to use computer vision to rifle through copious video footage taken in America's overseas drone wars. They feared Project Maven's AI could one day be used for lethal targeting. In my yearslong effort to uncover the full story of Project Maven for my book,, I learned that is exactly what happened, and that the undertaking was just as controversial inside the Pentagon. Today, the tool known as Maven Smart System is being used in US operations against Iran . How the US military's top brass moved from skepticism about the use of AI in war to true believers has a lot to do with a Marine colonel named Drew Cukor. In early September 2024, during the cocktail hour at a private retreat for tech investors and defense leaders, Vice Admiral Frank "Trey" Whitworth found his way to Drew Cukor. Now Project Maven's founding leader and his skeptical successor were standing face-to-face. Three years earlier, Whitworth had been the Pentagon's top military official for intelligence, advising the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and running one of the most sensitive and potentially lethal parts of any military process: targeting.

Species range maps (SRMs) are essential tools for research and policy-making in ecology, conservation, and environmental management.

Measuring global AI diffusion remains challenging due to a lack of population-normalized, cross-country usage data. We introduce AI User Share, a novel indicator that estimates the share of each country's working-age population actively using AI tools. Built from anonymized Microsoft telemetry and adjusted for device access and mobile scaling, this metric spans 147 economies and provides consistent, real-time insight into global AI diffusion. We find wide variation in adoption, with a strong correlation between AI User Share and GDP. High uptake is concentrated in developed economies, though usage among internet-connected populations in lower-income countries reveals substantial latent demand. We also detect sharp increases in usage following major product launches, such as DeepSeek in early 2025. While the metric's reliance solely on Microsoft telemetry introduces potential biases related to this user base, it offers an important new lens into how AI is spreading globally. AI User Share enables timely benchmarking that can inform data-driven AI policy.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is diffusing globally at unprecedented speed, but adoption remains uneven. Frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to perform poorly on low-resource languages due to data scarcity. We hypothesize that this performance deficit reduces the utility of AI, thereby slowing adoption in Low-Resource Language Countries (LRLCs). To test this, we use a weighted regression model to isolate the language effect from socioeconomic and demographic factors, finding that LRLCs have a share of AI users that is approximately 20% lower relative to their baseline. These results indicate that linguistic accessibility is a significant, independent barrier to equitable AI diffusion.

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are used to improve clinical and service outcomes, yet evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is dispersed. This protocol outlines methods to quantify the impact of CDSS on patient and healthcare delivery outcomes in LMICs. We will include comparative quantitative designs (randomized trials, controlled before-after, interrupted time series, comparative cohorts) evaluating CDSS in World Bank-defined LMICs. Standalone qualitative studies are excluded; mixed-methods studies are eligible only if they report comparative quantitative outcomes, for which we will extract the quantitative component. Searches (from inception to 30 September 2024) will cover MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Global Health, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, LILACS, African Index Medicus, and IndMED, plus grey sources. Screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate. Risk of bias will be assessed with RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (non-randomized). Random-effects meta-analysis will be performed where outcomes are conceptually or statistically comparable; otherwise, a structured narrative synthesis will be presented. Heterogeneity will be explored using relative and absolute metrics and a priori subgroups or meta-regression (condition area, care level, CDSS type, readiness proxies, study design).