Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) represent an emerging paradigm within artificial intelligence, with applications throughout the medical enterprise. Assessing GenAI applications necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the clinical task and awareness of the variability in performance when implemented in actual clinical environments. Presently, a prevalent method for evaluating the performance of generative models relies on quantitative benchmarks. Such benchmarks have limitations and may suffer from train-to-the-test overfitting, optimizing performance for a specified test set at the cost of generalizability across other task and data distributions. Evaluation strategies leveraging human expertise and utilizing cost-effective computational models as evaluators are gaining interest. We discuss current state-of-the-art methodologies for assessing the performance of GenAI applications in healthcare and medical devices.

SUMMARY As we increasingly use Artificial Intelligence (AI) in decision-making for industries like healthcare, finance, e-commerce, and even entertainment, it is crucial to also reflect on the ethical aspects of AI, for example the inclusivity and fairness of the information it provides. In this work, we aimed to evaluate different text-to-image AI models and compare the degree of gender bias they present. The evaluated models were Stable Diffusion XL (SDXL), Stable Diffusion Cascade (SC), DALL-E and Emu. We hypothesized that DALL-E and Stable Diffusion, which are comparatively older models, would exhibit a noticeable degree of gender bias towards men, while Emu, which was recently released by Meta AI, would have more balanced results. As hypothesized, we found that both Stable Diffusion models exhibit a noticeable degree of gender bias while Emu demonstrated more balanced results (i.e less gender bias). However, interestingly, Open AI's DALL-E exhibited almost opposite results, such that the ratio of women to men was significantly higher in most cases tested. Here, although we still observed a bias, the bias favored females over males. This bias may be explained by the fact that OpenAI changed the prompts at its backend, as observed during our experiment. We also observed that Emu from Meta AI utilized user information while generating images via WhatsApp. We also proposed some potential solutions to avoid such biases, including ensuring diversity across AI research teams and having diverse datasets. INTRODUCTION Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been growing remarkably in recent years, impacting numerous aspects of our daily lives. One such area of significant advancement is text-to-image generation.

What to Know About the'Dead Internet' Theory--and Why It's Spreading Open AI CEO Sam Altman speaks during Snowflake Summit 2025 at Moscone Center on June 02, 2025 in San Francisco, California. Open AI CEO Sam Altman speaks during Snowflake Summit 2025 at Moscone Center on June 02, 2025 in San Francisco, California. "i never took the dead internet theory that seriously but it seems like there are really a lot of LLM-run twitter accounts now," wrote Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, last week on X in his typical all-lowercase style. Altman, CEO of the company that created ChatGPT, the world's most popular AI text generator, drew irony on X. "You're absolutely right! This observation isn't just smart--it shows you're operating on a higher level," wrote one user, mimicking the sycophantic tone of ChatGPT text.

Large multimodal models (LMMs) have revolutionized text-to-image generation, but they risk perpetuating the harmful social biases in their training data. Prior work has identified gender bias in these models, but methodological limitations prevented large-scale, comparable, cross-model analysis. To address this gap, we introduce the Aymara Image Fairness Evaluation, a benchmark for assessing social bias in AI-generated images. We test 13 commercially available LMMs using 75 procedurally-generated, gender-neutral prompts to generate people in stereotypically-male, stereotypically-female, and non-stereotypical professions. We then use a validated LLM-as-a-judge system to score the 965 resulting images for gender representation. Our results reveal (p < .001 for all): 1) LMMs systematically not only reproduce but actually amplify occupational gender stereotypes relative to real-world labor data, generating men in 93.0% of images for male-stereotyped professions but only 22.5% for female-stereotyped professions; 2) Models exhibit a strong default-male bias, generating men in 68.3% of the time for non-stereotyped professions; and 3) The extent of bias varies dramatically across models, with overall male representation ranging from 46.7% to 73.3%. Notably, the top-performing model de-amplified gender stereotypes and approached gender parity, achieving the highest fairness scores. This variation suggests high bias is not an inevitable outcome but a consequence of design choices. Our work provides the most comprehensive cross-model benchmark of gender bias to date and underscores the necessity of standardized, automated evaluation tools for promoting accountability and fairness in AI development.

Generative AI (GAI) tools have seen rapid adoption in educational settings, yet their role in fostering critical thinking remains underexplored. While previous studies have examined GAI as a tutor for specific lessons or as a tool for completing assignments, few have addressed how students critically evaluate the accuracy and appropriateness of GAI-generated responses. This pilot study investigates students' ability to apply structured critical thinking when assessing Generative AI outputs in introductory Computational and Data Science courses. Given that GAI tools often produce contextually flawed or factually incorrect answers, we designed learning activities that require students to analyze, critique, and revise AI-generated solutions. Our findings offer initial insights into students' ability to engage critically with GAI content and lay the groundwork for more comprehensive studies in future semesters.

We introduce SimpleQA Verified, a 1,000-prompt benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) short-form factuality based on OpenAI's SimpleQA. It addresses critical limitations in OpenAI's benchmark, including noisy and incorrect labels, topical biases, and question redundancy. SimpleQA Verified was created through a rigorous multi-stage filtering process involving de-duplication, topic balancing, and source reconciliation to produce a more reliable and challenging evaluation set, alongside improvements in the autorater prompt. On this new benchmark, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves a state-of-the-art F1-score of 55.6, outperforming other frontier models, including GPT-5. This work provides the research community with a higher-fidelity tool to track genuine progress in parametric model factuality and to mitigate hallucinations. The benchmark dataset, evaluation code, and leaderboard are available at: https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/deepmind/simpleqa-verified.

The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) has opened up new opportunities in the area of cybersecurity, especially in the exploitation automation landscape and penetration testing. This study explores Android penetration testing automation using LLM-based tools, especially PentestGPT, to identify and execute rooting techniques. Through a comparison of the traditional manual rooting process and exploitation methods produced using AI, this study evaluates the efficacy, reliability, and scalability of automated penetration testing in achieving high-level privilege access on Android devices. With the use of an Android emulator (Genymotion) as the testbed, we fully execute both traditional and exploit-based rooting methods, automating the process using AI-generated scripts. Secondly, we create a web application by integrating OpenAI's API to facilitate automated script generation from LLM-processed responses. The research focuses on the effectiveness of AI-enabled exploitation by comparing automated and manual penetration testing protocols, by determining LLM weaknesses and strengths along the way. We also provide security suggestions of AI-enabled exploitation, including ethical factors and potential misuse. The findings exhibit that while LLMs can significantly streamline the workflow of exploitation, they need to be controlled by humans to ensure accuracy and ethical application. This study adds to the increasing body of literature on AI-powered cybersecurity and its effect on ethical hacking, security research, and mobile device security.

Individuals with ambulatory disabilities often encounter significant barriers when navigating urban environments due to the lack of accessible information and tools. This paper presents OmniAcc, an AI-powered interactive navigation system that utilizes GPT -4, satellite imagery, and OpenStreetMap data to identify, classify, and map wheelchair-accessible features such as ramps and crosswalks in the built environment. OmniAcc offers personalized route planning, real-time hands-free navigation, and instant query responses regarding physical accessibility. By using zero-shot learning and customized prompts, the system ensures precise detection of accessibility features, while supporting validation through structured workflows. This paper introduces OmniAcc and explores its potential to assist urban planners and mobility-aid users, demonstrated through a case study on crosswalk detection. With a crosswalk detection accuracy of 97.5%, OmniAcc highlights the transformative potential of AI in improving navigation and fostering more inclusive urban spaces.

The widespread use of generative AI has shown remarkable success in producing highly realistic deepfakes, posing a serious threat to various voice biometric applications, including speaker verification, voice biometrics, audio conferencing, and criminal investigations. To counteract this, several state-of-the-art (SoTA) audio deepfake detection (ADD) methods have been proposed to identify generative AI signatures to distinguish between real and deepfake audio. However, the effectiveness of these methods is severely undermined by anti-forensic (AF) attacks that conceal generative signatures. These AF attacks span a wide range of techniques, including statistical modifications (e.g., pitch shifting, filtering, noise addition, and quantization) and optimization-based attacks (e.g., FGSM, PGD, C \& W, and DeepFool). In this paper, we investigate the SoTA ADD methods and provide a comparative analysis to highlight their effectiveness in exposing deepfake signatures, as well as their vulnerabilities under adversarial conditions. We conducted an extensive evaluation of ADD methods on five deepfake benchmark datasets using two categories: raw and spectrogram-based approaches. This comparative analysis enables a deeper understanding of the strengths and limitations of SoTA ADD methods against diverse AF attacks. It does not only highlight vulnerabilities of ADD methods, but also informs the design of more robust and generalized detectors for real-world voice biometrics. It will further guide future research in developing adaptive defense strategies that can effectively counter evolving AF techniques.