AIhub Coffee Corner: does AI change the way we think? This month we ask whether AI tools are changing the way we think. Joining the conversation this time are: Joydeep Biswas (The University of Texas at Austin), Sanmay Das (Virginia Tech), Rina Dechter (University of California, Irvine), Sabine Hauert (University of Bristol), Michael Littman (Brown University), and Marija Slavkovik (University of Bergen). There's just so much to discuss there. I don't know how to start. First of all, it is definitely changing how we write code, develop code, think about correctness, and work on projects. Once upon a time, implementation used to be bottlenecked by writing the code. We are no longer bottlenecked by writing the code, we are bottlenecked in testing and understanding for correctness. As a researcher, there's a lot of what I would call throwaway tools.

A New Trick Reveals AI Models' Inner Thoughts Researchers devised a way to extract "reasoning traces" from Claude, GPT, and Gemini. What they found, they say, indicates that some Chinese AI may be trained on leading US models. Computer scientists recently discovered a way to extract the hidden "thinking" that frontier AI models perform as they work through complex problems. The findings provide some evidence--although not conclusive proof--that certain Chinese models may have been trained by " distilling " reasoning information from US models that was supposedly hidden because of how closely some of their thinking or reasoning patterns seem to match. The researchers have also demonstrated that the method could be used to recover personal information, like passwords and API keys, from a model's inner reasoning, although this vulnerability has been fixed.

Where Did All the Computer-Science Professors Go? AI companies are stripping universities of their best researchers. Anthropic has poached such an array of high-profile professors that it has become a punch line in academia. "'I'm joining Anthropic' is the new meme right now," Subbarao Kambhampati, a computer-science professor at Arizona State University (who has not joined Anthropic), told us. This month, the AI company hired the chair of UC Berkeley's department of electrical engineering and computer science, presumably to help build more capable bots. Perhaps more surprisingly, Anthropic has in recent weeks also picked up a Stanford economist, a theoretical physicist from the University of Maryland, and an analytic philosopher from UT Austin.

There's Never Been a Better Time to Study Computer Science Even as AI progresses, coders aren't doomed. It's a weird time to be studying computer science. Recent grads have a higher unemployment rate than those in just about every other major--yes, even philosophy. The internet is littered with rants from newly minted programmers who can't find work. On one such YouTube video, the top comment reads: "Your first mistake is not being born earlier."

A US physicist and a Canadian computer scientist have won this year's Turing Award for their invention of a form of seemingly unbreakable encryption. Charles H Bennett and Gilles Brassard's work, which dates back to 1984, is known as quantum cryptography and has redefined secure communication and computing, the award's body said. Scientists believe their work will be central to electronic communications in a world that depends heavily on data-sharing, but which for years has been trying to develop more powerful quantum computers. The Turing Award, named after the mathematician and code-breaker Alan Turing, is known as the Nobel Prize of computing. It comes with a $1m (£800,000) prize.

Descriptive set theorists study the niche mathematics of infinity. Now, they've shown that their problems can be rewritten in the concrete language of algorithms. All of modern mathematics is built on the foundation of set theory, the study of how to organize abstract collections of objects. But in general, research mathematicians don't need to think about it when they're solving their problems. They can take it for granted that sets behave the way they'd expect, and carry on with their work. Descriptive set theorists are an exception. This small community of mathematicians never stopped studying the fundamental nature of sets--particularly the strange infinite ones that other mathematicians ignore. Their field just got a lot less lonely. In 2023, a mathematician named Anton Bernshteyn published a deep and surprising connection between the remote mathematical frontier of descriptive set theory and modern computer science.

Purpose To conduct a systematic review of machine learning models for predicting violent behaviour by synthesising and appraising their validity, usefulness, and performance. Methods We systematically searched nine bibliographic databases and Google Scholar up to September 2025 for development and/or validation studies on machine learning methods for predicting all forms of violent behaviour. We synthesised the results by summarising discrimination and calibration performance statistics and evaluated study quality by examining risk of bias and clinical utility. Results We identified 38 studies reporting the development and validation of 40 models. Most studies reported Area Under the Curve (AUC) as the discrimination statistic with a range of 0.68-0.99. Only eight studies reported calibration performance, and three studies reported external validation. 31 studies had a high risk of bias, mainly in the analysis domain, and three studies had low risk of bias. The overall clinical utility of violence prediction models is poor, as indicated by risks of overfitting due to small samples, lack of transparent reporting, and low generalisability. Conclusion Although black box machine learning models currently have limited applicability in clinical settings, they may show promise for identifying high-risk individuals. We recommend five key considerations for violence prediction modelling: (i) ensuring methodological quality (e.g. following guidelines) and interdisciplinary collaborations; (ii) using black box algorithms only for highly complex data; (iii) incorporating dynamic predictions to allow for risk monitoring; (iv) developing more trustworthy algorithms using explainable methods; and (v) applying causal machine learning approaches where appropriate.

Recent findings reveal that even simple pricing algorithms can make things more expensive. Imagine a town with two widget merchants. Customers prefer cheaper widgets, so the merchants must compete to set the lowest price. Unhappy with their meager profits, they meet one night in a smoke-filled tavern to discuss a secret plan: If they raise prices together instead of competing, they can both make more money. But that kind of intentional price-fixing, called collusion, has long been illegal.

The acceleration of artificial intelligence (AI) in science is recognized and many scholars have begun to explore its role in interdisciplinary collaboration. However, the mechanisms and extent of this impact are still unclear. This study, using AlphaFold's impact on structural biologists, examines how AI technologies influence interdisciplinary collaborative patterns. By analyzing 1,247 AlphaFold-related papers and 7,700 authors from Scopus, we employ bibliometric analysis and causal inference to compare interdisciplinary collaboration between AlphaFold adopters and non-adopters. Contrary to the widespread belief that AI facilitates interdisciplinary collaboration, our findings show that AlphaFold increased structural biology-computer science collaborations by just 0.48%, with no measurable effect on other disciplines. Specifically, AI creates interdisciplinary collaboration demands with specific disciplines due to its technical characteristics, but this demand is weakened by technological democratization and other factors. These findings demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI) alone has limited efficacy in bridging disciplinary divides or fostering meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration.

A canonical problem in computer science is to find the shortest route to every point in a network. A new approach beats the classic algorithm taught in textbooks. If you want to solve a tricky problem, it often helps to get organized. You might, for example, break the problem into pieces and tackle the easiest pieces first. But this kind of sorting has a cost.