NVIDIA invests $100 billion in OpenAI, Trump's H-1B visa fee announcement causes chaos, and an Enron parody goes off the rails. Please enable javascript to get your Slate Plus feeds. If you can't access your feeds, please contact customer support. Check your phone for a link to finish setting up your feed. Please enter a valid phone number.

Though artificial intelligence is fueling a surge in synthetic child abuse images, it's also being tested as a way to stop harm to real victims. Generative AI has enabled the production of child sexual abuse images to skyrocket. Now the leading investigator of child exploitation in the US is experimenting with using AI to distinguish AI-generated images from material depicting real victims, according to a new government filing. The Department of Homeland Security's Cyber Crimes Center, which investigates child exploitation across international borders, has awarded a $150,000 contract to San Francisco-based Hive AI for its software, which can identify whether a piece of content was AI-generated. The filing, posted on September 19, is heavily redacted and Hive cofounder and CEO Kevin Guo told that he could not discuss the details of the contract, but confirmed it involves use of the company's AI detection algorithms for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The filing quotes data from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that reported a 1,325% increase in incidents involving generative AI in 2024.

As large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on traditional benchmarks, there is an urgent need for more challenging evaluation frameworks that probe deeper aspects of semantic understanding. We introduce SAGE (Semantic Alignment & Generalization Evaluation), a rigorous benchmark designed to assess both embedding models and similarity metrics across five categories: Human Preference Alignment, Transformation Robustness, Information Sensitivity, Clustering Performance, and Retrieval Robustness. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on isolated capabilities, SAGE evaluates semantic understanding through adversarial conditions, noisy transformations, and nuanced human judgment tasks across 30+ datasets. Our comprehensive evaluation of 9 embedding models and classical metrics reveals significant performance gaps, with no single approach excelling across all dimensions. For instance, while state-of-the-art embedding models like OpenAI's text-embedding-3-large dominate in aligning with human preferences (0.682 vs. 0.591 for the best classical metric), they are significantly outperformed by classical metrics on information sensitivity tasks, where Jaccard Similarity achieves a score of 0.905 compared to the top embedding score of 0.794. SAGE further uncovers critical trade-offs: OpenAI's text-embedding-3-small achieves the highest clustering performance (0.483) but demonstrates extreme brittleness with the lowest robustness score (0.011). SAGE exposes critical limitations in current semantic understanding capabilities and provides a more realistic assessment of model robustness for real-world deployment.

As designers become familiar with Generative AI, a new concept is emerging: Agentic AI. While generative AI produces output in response to prompts, agentic AI systems promise to perform mundane tasks autonomously, potentially freeing designers to focus on what they love: being creative. But how do designers feel about integrating agentic AI systems into their workflows? Through design fiction, we investigated how designers want to interact with a collaborative agentic AI platform. Ten professional designers imagined and discussed collaborating with an AI agent to organise inspiration sources and ideate. Our findings highlight the roles AI agents can play in supporting designers, the division of authority between humans and AI, and how designers' intent can be explained to AI agents beyond prompts. We synthesise our findings into a conceptual framework that identifies authority distribution among humans and AI agents and discuss directions for utilising AI agents in future design workflows.

In the past few years, foundation models based on large transformer networks such as Google's BERT (Kenton and Toutanova, 2019) and OpenAI's GPT family (Radford, 2018) have been shown to be invaluable aids for scientific discovery in the analysis of genomic data (Cui et al., 2024; Theodoris et al., 2023; Chen and Zou, 2025). More specifically, foundation models targeted for genomic applications typically comprise of those that are trained on enormous databases of experimental data such as scGPT (Cui et al., 2024), which was trained on transcriptomes from 33 million human cells from 441 different studies or the GeneFormer model (Theodoris et al., 2023), which was trained on 29.9 million human single-cell transcriptomes. On the other hand, foundation models based on pre-training on internet-scale databases of natural language texts may offer distinct advantages, such as potentially taking advantage of niche biological relationships which may be widely documented in scientific literature, but not necessarily be represented experimentally in large-scale genomics datasets. For this reason, some recent works have used the embedding outputs of large-language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT (Radford, 2018) to encode the biological information contained in text-based gene descriptions, such as those in the NCBI database (Schoch et al., 2020). Notably, Chen and Zou (2025) show that these text-based gene descriptors can be input to GPT-3.5 to obtain gene embeddings that act as features/covariates for standard prediction algorithms, denoted GenePT.

Recent developments in Generative AI enable creators to stylize 3D models based on text prompts. These methods change the 3D model geometry, which can compromise the model's structural integrity once fabricated. We present MechStyle, a system that enables creators to stylize 3D printable models while preserving their structural integrity. MechStyle accomplishes this by augmenting the Generative AI-based stylization process with feedback from a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulation. As the stylization process modifies the geometry to approximate the desired style, feedback from the FEA simulation reduces modifications to regions with increased stress. We evaluate the effectiveness of FEA simulation feedback in the augmented stylization process by comparing three stylization control strategies. We also investigate the time efficiency of our approach by comparing three adaptive scheduling strategies. Finally, we demonstrate MechStyle's user interface that allows users to generate stylized and structurally viable 3D models and provide five example applications.

Large datasets have been a major contributor to the success of AI models. The fields of Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing have seen tremendous progress due to the presence of internet-scale datasets like ImageNet [1] and Laion-5b [2]. Models such as Chat-GPT [3] and Dall-E[4] demonstrate strong generalization capabilities for tasks that were not explicitly represented in their training data, thanks to the use of diverse training datasets and large-scale transformer-based architectures. Similar efforts have been undertaken in robotics to collect large datasets, such as Open X-Embodiment [5] and DROID [6]. These datasets focus on end-to-end training of robots but there is still a need for task-specific datasets. Robot grasping is one such task, and a generalized grasping model remains elusive, in part due to the lack of geometrically diverse objects in existing datasets. In this work, we present an object-centric grasping dataset that offers greater geometric diversity compared to existing datasets. Currently, object-centric grasping datasets [7, 8, 9] and scene-based grasping datasets [10, 11, 12] are mostly geared toward domestic robotics applications. These datasets have been used to train robot grasping models such as [13, 14, 15, 16].

The rapid integration of AI-powered coding assistants into developer workflows has raised significant privacy and trust concerns. As developers entrust proprietary code to services like OpenAI's GPT, Google's Gemini, and GitHub Copilot, the unclear data handling practices of these tools create security and compliance risks. This paper addresses this challenge by introducing and applying a novel, expert-validated privacy scorecard. The methodology involves a detailed analysis of four document types; from legal policies to external audits; to score five leading assistants against 14 weighted criteria. A legal expert and a data protection officer refined these criteria and their weighting. The results reveal a distinct hierarchy of privacy protections, with a 20-point gap between the highest- and lowest-ranked tools. The analysis uncovers common industry weaknesses, including the pervasive use of opt-out consent for model training and a near-universal failure to filter secrets from user prompts proactively. The resulting scorecard provides actionable guidance for developers and organizations, enabling evidence-based tool selection. This work establishes a new benchmark for transparency and advocates for a shift towards more user-centric privacy standards in the AI industry.

The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has blurred the line between human and AI-generated texts, raising urgent questions about academic integrity, intellectual property, and the spread of misinformation. Thus, reliable AI-text detection is needed for fair assessment to safeguard human authenticity and cultivate trust in digital communication. In this study, we investigate how well current machine learning (ML) approaches can distinguish ChatGPT-3.5-generated texts from human-written texts employing a labeled data set of 250 pairs of abstracts from a wide range of research topics. We test and compare both classical (Logistic Regression armed with classical Bag-of-Words, POS, and TF-IDF features) and transformer-based (BERT augmented with N-grams, DistilBERT, BERT with a lightweight custom classifier, and LSTM-based N-gram models) ML detection techniques. As we aim to assess each model's performance in detecting AI-generated research texts, we also aim to test whether an ensemble of these models can outperform any single detector. Results show DistilBERT achieves the overall best performance, while Logistic Regression and BERT-Custom offer solid, balanced alternatives; LSTM- and BERT-N-gram approaches lag. The max voting ensemble of the three best models fails to surpass DistilBERT itself, highlighting the primacy of a single transformer-based representation over mere model diversity. By comprehensively assessing the strengths and weaknesses of these AI-text detection approaches, this work lays a foundation for more robust transformer frameworks with larger, richer datasets to keep pace with ever-improving generative AI models.

Abstract--Generative models are increasingly adopted in high-stakes domains, yet current deployments offer no mechanisms to verify whether a given output truly originates from the certified model. We address this gap by extending model fingerprinting techniques beyond the traditional collaborative setting to one where the model provider itself may act adversarially, replacing the certified model with a cheaper or lower-quality substitute. T o our knowledge, this is the first work to study fingerprinting for provenance attribution under such a threat model. Our approach introduces a trusted verifier that, during a certification phase, extracts hidden fingerprints from the authentic model's output space and trains a detector to recognize them. During verification, this detector can determine whether new outputs are consistent with the certified model, without requiring specialized hardware or model modifications. In extensive experiments, our methods achieve near-zero FPR@95%TPR on both GANs and diffusion models, and remain effective even against subtle architectural or training changes. Furthermore, the approach is robust to adaptive adversaries that actively manipulate outputs in an attempt to evade detection. Recent advances in generative AI have led to the widespread deployment of generative models across various domains, with providers of generative AI services increasingly monetizing their models by offering subscription-based access. However, this rapid adoption has raised serious concerns about the risks posed by these models, particularly in safety-critical domains, such as healthcare and defense, where erroneous model outputs can have disastrous consequences [1]. In response, policymakers are introducing legal frameworks to regulate the use of AI and, in particular, the deployment of generative models. For instance, the European Union's AI Act mandates independent, periodic audits for "high-risk" AI systems deployed in domains such as healthcare, education, employment, and critical infrastructure [2]. This requirement to pass or be certified by an audit raises a critical question: How can users verify that a given output indeed originated from the audited model?