With the development of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools to create art, stakeholders cannot come to an agreement on the value of these works. In this study we uncovered the mixed opinions surrounding art made by AI. We developed two versions of a dance performance augmented by technology either with or without GenAI. For each version we informed audiences of the performance's development either before or after a survey on their perceptions of the performance. There were thirty-nine participants (13 males, 26 female) divided between the four performances. Results demonstrated that individuals were more inclined to attribute artistic merit to works made by GenAI when they were unaware of its use. We present this case study as a call to address the importance of utilizing the social context and the users' interpretations of GenAI in shaping a technical explanation, leading to a greater discussion that can bridge gaps in understanding.

Today's algorithm-driven interfaces, from recommendation feeds to GenAI tools, often prioritize engagement and efficiency at the expense of user agency. As systems take on more decision-making, users have less control over what they see and how meaning or relationships between content are constructed. This paper introduces "Hypertextual Friction," a conceptual design stance that repositions classical hypertext principles--friction, traceability, and structure--as actionable values for reclaiming agency in algorithmically mediated environments. Through a comparative analysis of real-world interfaces--Wikipedia vs. Instagram Explore, and Are.na vs. GenAI image tools--we examine how different systems structure user experience, navigation, and authorship. We show that hypertext systems emphasize provenance, associative thinking, and user-driven meaning-making, while algorithmic systems tend to obscure process and flatten participation. We contribute: (1) a comparative analysis of how interface structures shape agency in user-driven versus agent-driven systems, and (2) a conceptual stance that offers hypertextual values as design commitments for reclaiming agency in an increasingly algorithmic web.

How can AI move beyond imitation toward genuine creativity? This paper proposes the E.A.R.T.H. framework, a five-stage generative pipeline that transforms model-generated errors into creative assets through Error generation, Amplification, Refine selection, Transform, and Harness feedback. Drawing on cognitive science and generative modeling, we posit that "creative potential hides in failure" and operationalize this via structured prompts, semantic scoring, and human-in-the-loop evaluation. Implemented using LLaMA-2-7B-Chat, SBERT, BERTScore, CLIP, BLIP-2, and Stable Diffusion, the pipeline employs a composite reward function based on novelty, surprise, and relevance. At the Refine stage, creativity scores increase by 52.5% (1.179 to 1.898, t = -5.56, p < 0.001), with final outputs reaching 2.010 - a 70.4% improvement. Refined slogans are 48.4% shorter, 40.7% more novel, with only a 4.0% drop in relevance. Cross-modal tests show strong slogan-to-image alignment (CLIPScore: 0.249; BERTScore F1: 0.816). In human evaluations, the generated outputs were consistently rated highly, demonstrating strong creative quality and expressive clarity. Feedback highlights stylistic precision and emotional resonance. These results demonstrate that error-centered, feedback-driven generation enhances creativity, offering a scalable path toward self-evolving, human-aligned creative AI.

In collaborative systems with complex tasks relying on distributed resources, trust evaluation of potential collaborators has emerged as an effective mechanism for task completion. However, due to the network dynamics and varying information gathering latencies, it is extremely challenging to observe and collect all trust attributes of a collaborating device concurrently for a comprehensive trust assessment. In this paper, a novel progressive trust evaluation framework, namely chain-of-trust, is proposed to make better use of misaligned device attribute data. This framework, designed for effective task completion, divides the trust evaluation process into multiple chained stages based on task decomposition. At each stage, based on the task completion process, the framework only gathers the latest device attribute data relevant to that stage, leading to reduced trust evaluation complexity and overhead. By leveraging advanced in-context learning, few-shot learning, and reasoning capabilities, generative AI is then employed to analyze and interpret the collected data to produce correct evaluation results quickly. Only devices deemed trustworthy at this stage proceed to the next round of trust evaluation. The framework ultimately determines devices that remain trustworthy across all stages. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves high accuracy in trust evaluation.

Tran* sat across from me, phone in hand, scrolling. "I just wanted to make sure I didn't say the wrong thing," he explained, referring to a disagreement with his partner. "So I asked ChatGPT what I should say." He read the chatbot-generated message aloud. It was articulate, logical and composed – too composed.

OpenAI's Sam Altman, flanked by President Trump and Softbank's Masayoshi Son, announced a hugely ambitious investment in data centers across America to support all the artificial intelligence we're going to be using. Months in, the project has been scaled back to a single, power-hungry data center in Ohio. Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking "Try Free" at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.

Fox News anchor and executive editor Bret Baier has the latest on fears over the'darker side' of artificial intelligence on'Special Report.' Generative Artificial Intelligence can create lifelike imaging and audio, which is likely why an increasing number of film studios are incorporating A.I. into special effects. It comes just two years after Hollywood's largest union went on strike, in part over the impact A.I. would bring. "Popular culture movies like The Terminator have created a very dark dystopian version of what this could look like," White House A.I. and Crypto Czar David Sacks said. "The version of the future of A.I. that I think is probably most accurate if you want to pop cultural references is Star Trek Enterprise. Think about the ship computer in that. It can perform tasks for you. But it doesn't have a will of its own, it doesn't' have a mind of its' own. It's there to help the crew, and it needs to be supervised by humans."

Anthropic revoked OpenAI's API access to its models on Tuesday, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell WIRED. OpenAI was informed that its access was cut off due to violating the terms of service. "Claude Code has become the go-to choice for coders everywhere and so it was no surprise to learn OpenAI's own technical staff were also using our coding tools ahead of the launch of GPT-5," Anthropic spokesperson Christopher Nulty said in a statement to WIRED. "Unfortunately, this is a direct violation of our terms of service." According to Anthropic's commercial terms of service, customers are barred from using the service to "build a competing product or service, including to train competing AI models" or "reverse engineer or duplicate" the services.

It should come as no surprise that students the world over are using ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence chatbots to cheat. On homework, on tests, and on anything else you care to mention. After all, why work something out yourself when there's an AI chatbot waiting and willing to do the hard work for you? This is obviously a problem in need of fixing, and OpenAI's answer is a Study Mode that's now baked into ChatGPT. The idea is to stop students from simply asking ChatGPT to tell them the answer to a question, and to have ChatGPT teach them how to answer the question for themselves.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as educational tools, yet evaluating their teaching capabilities remains challenging due to the resource-intensive, context-dependent, and methodologically complex nature of teacher-student interactions. We introduce EducationQ, a multi-agent dialogue framework that efficiently assesses teaching capabilities through simulated dynamic educational scenarios, featuring specialized agents for teaching, learning, and evaluation. Testing 14 LLMs across major AI Organizations (OpenAI, Meta, Google, Anthropic, and others) on 1,498 questions spanning 13 disciplines and 10 difficulty levels reveals that teaching effectiveness does not correlate linearly with model scale or general reasoning capabilities - with some smaller open-source models outperforming larger commercial counterparts in teaching contexts. This finding highlights a critical gap in current evaluations that prioritize knowledge recall over interactive pedagogy. Our mixed-methods evaluation, combining quantitative metrics with qualitative analysis and expert case studies, identifies distinct pedagogical strengths employed by top-performing models (e.g., sophisticated questioning strategies, adaptive feedback mechanisms). Human expert evaluations show 78% agreement with our automated qualitative analysis of effective teaching behaviors, validating our methodology. EducationQ demonstrates that LLMs-as-teachers require specialized optimization beyond simple scaling, suggesting next-generation educational AI prioritize targeted enhancement of specific pedagogical effectiveness.