Stargate, the massive artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure project recently unveiled by President Donald Trump, has begun production in Texas -- with data center construction in other states expected to be announced in the coming months. OpenAI, Softbank, Oracle and other partners' total investment of 500 million in the project will produce a large-scale network of campuses. Each campus will be designed in the roughly 1 gigawatt (GW) or greater range, a measurement of electricity that can power a minimum of 750,000 homes. During a recent press briefing on The Stargate Project attended by Fox News Digital, OpenAI announced that construction on the first site is underway in Abilene, Texas. Significant progress has been made in identifying additional locations.

Traditional ethical hacking relies on skilled professionals and time-intensive command management, which limits its scalability and efficiency. To address these challenges, we introduce PenTest++, an AI-augmented system that integrates automation with generative AI (GenAI) to optimise ethical hacking workflows. Developed in a controlled virtual environment, PenTest++ streamlines critical penetration testing tasks, including reconnaissance, scanning, enumeration, exploitation, and documentation, while maintaining a modular and adaptable design. The system balances automation with human oversight, ensuring informed decision-making at key stages, and offers significant benefits such as enhanced efficiency, scalability, and adaptability. However, it also raises ethical considerations, including privacy concerns and the risks of AI-generated inaccuracies (hallucinations). This research underscores the potential of AI-driven systems like PenTest++ to complement human expertise in cybersecurity by automating routine tasks, enabling professionals to focus on strategic decision-making. By incorporating robust ethical safeguards and promoting ongoing refinement, PenTest++ demonstrates how AI can be responsibly harnessed to address operational and ethical challenges in the evolving cybersecurity landscape.

The pervasiveness of large language models and generative AI in online media has amplified the need for effective automated fact-checking to assist fact-checkers in tackling the increasing volume and sophistication of misinformation. The complex nature of fact-checking demands that automated fact-checking systems provide explanations that enable fact-checkers to scrutinise their outputs. However, it is unclear how these explanations should align with the decision-making and reasoning processes of fact-checkers to be effectively integrated into their workflows. Through semi-structured interviews with fact-checking professionals, we bridge this gap by: (i) providing an account of how fact-checkers assess evidence, make decisions, and explain their processes; (ii) examining how fact-checkers use automated tools in practice; and (iii) identifying fact-checker explanation requirements for automated fact-checking tools. The findings show unmet explanation needs and identify important criteria for replicable fact-checking explanations that trace the model's reasoning path, reference specific evidence, and highlight uncertainty and information gaps.

Multi-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs), a subset of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), have recently made significant progress. While expectations for LLMs to assist systems engineering (SE) tasks are paramount; the interdisciplinary and complex nature of systems, along with the need to synthesize deep-domain knowledge and operational context, raise questions regarding the efficacy of LLMs to generate SE artifacts, particularly given that they are trained using data that is broadly available on the internet. To that end, we present results from an empirical exploration, where a human expert-generated SE artifact was taken as a benchmark, parsed, and fed into various LLMs through prompt engineering to generate segments of typical SE artifacts. This procedure was applied without any fine-tuning or calibration to document baseline LLM performance. We then adopted a two-fold mixed-methods approach to compare AI generated artifacts against the benchmark. First, we quantitatively compare the artifacts using natural language processing algorithms and find that when prompted carefully, the state-of-the-art algorithms cannot differentiate AI-generated artifacts from the human-expert benchmark. Second, we conduct a qualitative deep dive to investigate how they differ in terms of quality. We document that while the two-material appear very similar, AI generated artifacts exhibit serious failure modes that could be difficult to detect. We characterize these as: premature requirements definition, unsubstantiated numerical estimates, and propensity to overspecify. We contend that this study tells a cautionary tale about why the SE community must be more cautious adopting AI suggested feedback, at least when generated by multi-purpose LLMs.

While financial data presents one of the most challenging and interesting sequence modelling tasks due to high noise, heavy tails, and strategic interactions, progress in this area has been hindered by the lack of consensus on quantitative evaluation paradigms. To address this, we present LOB-Bench, a benchmark, implemented in python, designed to evaluate the quality and realism of generative message-by-order data for limit order books (LOB) in the LOBSTER format. Our framework measures distributional differences in conditional and unconditional statistics between generated and real LOB data, supporting flexible multivariate statistical evaluation. The benchmark also includes features commonly used LOB statistics such as spread, order book volumes, order imbalance, and message inter-arrival times, along with scores from a trained discriminator network. Lastly, LOB-Bench contains "market impact metrics", i.e. the cross-correlations and price response functions for specific events in the data. We benchmark generative autoregressive state-space models, a (C)GAN, as well as a parametric LOB model and find that the autoregressive GenAI approach beats traditional model classes.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to transform healthcare by enabling personalized and efficient care through data-driven insights. Although radiology is at the forefront of AI adoption, in practice, the potential of AI models is often overshadowed by severe failures to generalize: AI models can have performance degradation of up to 20% when transitioning from controlled test environments to clinical use by radiologists. This mismatch raises concerns that radiologists will be misled by incorrect AI predictions in practice and/or grow to distrust AI, rendering these promising technologies practically ineffectual. Exhaustive clinical trials of AI models on abundant and diverse data is thus critical to anticipate AI model degradation when encountering varied data samples. Achieving these goals, however, is challenging due to the high costs of collecting diverse data samples and corresponding annotations. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a novel conditional generative AI model designed for virtual clinical trials (VCTs) of radiology AI, capable of realistically synthesizing full-body CT images of patients with specified attributes. By learning the joint distribution of images and anatomical structures, our model enables precise replication of real-world patient populations with unprecedented detail at this scale. We demonstrate meaningful evaluation of radiology AI models through VCTs powered by our synthetic CT study populations, revealing model degradation and facilitating algorithmic auditing for bias-inducing data attributes. Our generative AI approach to VCTs is a promising avenue towards a scalable solution to assess model robustness, mitigate biases, and safeguard patient care by enabling simpler testing and evaluation of AI models in any desired range of diverse patient populations.

In recent years, remarkable advancements in deep- fake generation technology have led to unprecedented leaps in its realism and capabilities. Despite these advances, we observe a notable lack of structured and deep analysis deepfake technology. The principal aim of this survey is to contribute a thorough theoretical analysis of state-of-the-art face deepfake generation and detection methods. Furthermore, we provide a coherent and systematic evaluation of the implications of deepfakes on face biometric recognition approaches. In addition, we outline key applications of face deepfake technology, elucidating both positive and negative applications of the technology, provide a detailed discussion regarding the gaps in existing research, and propose key research directions for further investigation.

The emergence of Generative AI (Gen AI) has motivated an interest in understanding how it could be used to enhance productivity across various tasks. We add to research results for the performance impact of Gen AI on complex knowledge-based tasks in a public sector setting. In a pre-registered experiment, after establishing a baseline level of performance, we find mixed evidence for two types of composite tasks related to document understanding and data analysis. For the Documents task, the treatment group using Gen AI had a 17% improvement in answer quality scores (as judged by human evaluators) and a 34% improvement in task completion time compared to a control group. For the Data task, we find the Gen AI treatment group experienced a 12% reduction in quality scores and no significant difference in mean completion time compared to the control group. These results suggest that the benefits of Gen AI may be task and potentially respondent dependent. We also discuss field notes and lessons learned, as well as supplementary insights from a post-trial survey and feedback workshop with participants.

Recent advances in generative AI music have resulted in new technologies that are being framed as co-creative tools for musicians with early work demonstrating their potential to add to music practice. While the field has seen many valuable contributions, work that involves practising musicians in the design and development of these tools is limited, with the majority of work including them only once a tool has been developed. In this paper, we present a case study that explores the needs of practising musicians through the co-design of a musical variation system, highlighting the importance of involving a diverse range of musicians throughout the design process and uncovering various design insights. This was achieved through two workshops and a two week ecological evaluation, where musicians from different musical backgrounds offered valuable insights not only on a musical system's design but also on how a musical AI could be integrated into their musical practices.

Recent advances in generative AI have precipitated a proliferation of novel writing assistants. These systems typically rely on multilingual large language models (LLMs), providing globalized workers the ability to revise or create diverse forms of content in different languages. However, there is substantial evidence indicating that the performance of multilingual LLMs varies between languages. Users who employ writing assistance for multiple languages are therefore susceptible to disparate output quality. Importantly, recent research has shown that people tend to generalize algorithmic errors across independent tasks, violating the behavioral axiom of choice independence. In this paper, we analyze whether user utilization of novel writing assistants in a charity advertisement writing task is affected by the AI's performance in a second language. Furthermore, we quantify the extent to which these patterns translate into the persuasiveness of generated charity advertisements, as well as the role of peoples' beliefs about LLM utilization in their donation choices. Our results provide evidence that writers who engage with an LLM-based writing assistant violate choice independence, as prior exposure to a Spanish LLM reduces subsequent utilization of an English LLM. While these patterns do not affect the aggregate persuasiveness of the generated advertisements, people's beliefs about the source of an advertisement (human versus AI) do. In particular, Spanish-speaking female participants who believed that they read an AI-generated advertisement strongly adjusted their donation behavior downwards. Furthermore, people are generally not able to adequately differentiate between human-generated and LLM-generated ads. Our work has important implications for the design, development, integration, and adoption of multilingual LLMs as assistive agents -- particularly in writing tasks.