This position paper argues that real-time generative AI has the potential to become the next wave of addictive digital media, creating a new class of digital content akin to "digital heroin" with severe implications for mental health and youth development. By shortening the content-generation feedback loop to mere seconds, these advanced models will soon be able to hyper-personalize outputs on the fly. When paired with misaligned incentives (e.g., maximizing user engagement), this will fuel unprecedented compulsive consumption patterns with far-reaching consequences for mental health, cognitive development, and social stability. Drawing on interdisciplinary research, from clinical observations of social media addiction to neuroscientific studies of dopamine-driven feedback, we illustrate how real-time tailored content generation may erode user autonomy, foment emotional distress, and disproportionately endanger vulnerable groups, such as adolescents. Due to the rapid advancement of generative AI and its potential to induce severe addictionlike effects, we call for strong government oversight akin to existing controls on addictive substances, particularly for minors. We further urge the machine learning community to act proactively by establishing robust design guidelines, collaborating with public health experts, and supporting targeted policy measures to ensure responsible and ethical deployment, rather than paving the way for another wave of unregulated digital dependence.

Quantifying our lives is easier than it's ever been. But a philosopher of games warns that external metrics and data can never capture what's truly important. There are plenty of useful things a metric can reveal. There are even more it can obscure or corrupt. It took me well over a decade of tracking my own life in ever greater detail to fully appreciate this duality, which probably reveals something about both me and the nature of measurement. Like a lot of people bitten by the self-quantifying bug, I initially started gathering personal data to pursue a nebulous collection of goals and desires.

We argue that the machine learning value chain is structurally unsustainable due to an economic data processing inequality: each state in the data cycle from inputs to model weights to synthetic outputs refines technical signal but strips economic equity from data generators. We show, by analyzing seventy-three public data deals, that the majority of value accrues to aggregators, with documented creator royalties rounding to zero and widespread opacity of deal terms. This is not just an economic welfare concern: as data and its derivatives become economic assets, the feedback loop that sustains current learning algorithms is at risk. We identify three structural faults--missing provenance, asymmetric bargaining power, and nondynamic pricing--as the operational machinery of this inequality. In our analysis, we trace these problems along the machine learning value chain and propose an Equitable Data-Value Exchange (EDVEX) Framework to enable a minimal market that benefits all participants. Finally, we outline research directions where our community can make concrete contributions to data deals and contextualize our position with related and orthogonal viewpoints.

Follow this section to personalize your feed and get instant alerts. Follow Go to your personalized feed WHY FOLLOW? Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens. Follow this tag to personalize your feed and get instant alerts. Follow Go to your personalized feed WHY FOLLOW?

To build one family's dream house on a flood-prone Mississippi bayou, AD100 architect Tom Kundig decided the sky's the limit. Tom Kundig absorbed lessons in resilience before he even knew the word. As a child, he saw many of the industrial and agricultural buildings of the rural Pacific Northwest abandoned but still standing, the harsh winter conditions no match for their steel columns. That background came in handy when he was asked to design a house for a young family on a coastal Mississippi site susceptible to severe flooding. The clients, Joel and Jill Kavanaugh, had fallen in love with a plot bordering the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Ocean Springs, Mississippi.

Follow this author to personalize your feed and get instant alerts. Follow Go to your personalized feed WHY FOLLOW? Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens. During the summer of 2006, while pregnant with her son, Julia Olson staggered through a then record-breaking heat wave in Oregon, as New Orleans was just beginning its long road to recovery after Hurricane Katrina hit the year before. At the time, Olson was a public interest environmental lawyer.

Regulatory frameworks, such as the EUAIAct, encourage openness of generalpurpose AI models by offering legal exemptions for "open-source" models. Despite this legislative attention on openness, the definition of open-source foundation models remains ambiguous.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in medical contexts, raising critical concerns about safety, alignment, and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation. While prior benchmarks assess model refusal capabilities for harmful prompts, they often lack clinical specificity, graded harmfulness levels, and coverage of jailbreak-style attacks. We introduce CARES (Clinical Adversarial Robustness and Evaluation of Safety), a benchmark for evaluating LLM safety in healthcare. CARES includes over 18,000 prompts spanning eight medical safety principles, four harm levels, and four prompting styles: direct, indirect, obfuscated, and role-play, to simulate both malicious and benign use cases.

Artificial intelligence (AI) now permeates critical infrastructures and decisionmaking systems where failures produce social, economic, and democratic harm. This position paper challenges the entrenched belief that regulation and innovation are opposites. As evidenced by analogies from aviation, pharmaceuticals, and welfare systems and recent cases of synthetic misinformation, bias and unaccountable decision-making, the absence of well-designed regulation has already created immeasurable damage. Regulation, when thoughtful and adaptive, is not a brake on innovation--it is its foundation. The present position paper examines the EU AIAct as a model of risk-based, responsibility-driven regulation that addresses the Collingridge Dilemma: acting early enough to prevent harm, yet flexibly enough to sustain innovation. Its adaptive mechanisms--regulatory sandboxes, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) support, real-world testing, fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA)--demonstrate how regulation can accelerate responsibly, rather than delay, technological progress. The position paper summarises how governance tools transform perceived burdens into tangible advantages: legal certainty, consumer trust, and ethical competitiveness.

How blue whales became Earth's largest creature--ever More information Adding us as a Preferred Source in Google by using this link indicates that you would like to see more of our content in Google News results. Just a blue whale's tongue weighs as much as an adult elephant. Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent six days a week. By signing up, you confirm you are 16+, will receive newsletters and promotional content and agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy . Think of the largest elephant you can.