The Download: how AI is used for military targeting, and the Pentagon's war on Claude Plus: an ex-DOGE staffer has been accused of stealing social security data. The US military might use generative AI systems to rank targets and recommend which to strike first, according to a Defense Department official. A list of possible targets could first be fed into a generative AI system that the Pentagon is fielding for classified settings. Humans might then ask the system to analyze the information and prioritize the targets. They would then be responsible for checking and evaluating the results and recommendations. OpenAI's ChatGPT and xAI's Grok could soon be at the center of exactly these sorts of high-stakes military decisions.

Though the US military's big data initiative Maven has sped up the planning of strikes for years, the comments suggest that generative AI is now adding a new interpretative layer to such deliberations. The US military might use generative AI systems to rank lists of targets and make recommendations--which would be vetted by humans--about which to strike first, according to a Defense Department official with knowledge of the matter. The disclosure about how the military may use AI chatbots comes as the Pentagon faces scrutiny over a strike on an Iranian school, which it is still investigating. A list of possible targets might be fed into a generative AI system that the Pentagon is fielding for classified settings. Then, said the official, who requested to speak on background with to discuss sensitive topics, humans might ask the system to analyze the information and prioritize the targets while accounting for factors like where aircraft are currently located. Humans would then be responsible for checking and evaluating the results and recommendations.

Big AI companies courted controversy by scraping wide swaths of the public internet. With the rise of AI agents, the next data grab is far more private. For years, the cost of using "free" services from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and other Big Tech firms has been handing over your data. Uploading your life into the cloud and using free tech brings conveniences, but it puts personal information in the hands of giant corporations that will often be looking to monetize it. Now, the next wave of generative AI systems are likely to want more access to your data than ever before. Over the past two years, generative AI tools--such as OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini--have moved beyond the relatively straightforward, text-only chatbots that the companies initially released.

This chapter discusses the ethics of generative AI. It provides a technical primer to show how generative AI affords experiencing technology as if it were human, and this affordance provides a fruitful focus for the philosophical ethics of generative AI. It then shows how generative AI can both aggravate and alleviate familiar ethical concerns in AI ethics, including responsibility, privacy, bias and fairness, and forms of alienation and exploitation. Finally, the chapter examines ethical questions that arise specifically from generative AI's mimetic generativity, such as debates about authorship and credit, the emergence of as-if social relationships with machines, and new forms of influence, persuasion, and manipulation.

Generative AI systems may pose serious risks to individuals vulnerable to eating disorders. Existing safeguards tend to overlook subtle but clinically significant cues, leaving many risks unaddressed. To better understand the nature of these risks, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 clinicians, researchers, and advocates with expertise in eating disorders. Using abductive qualitative analysis, we developed an expert-guided taxonomy of generative AI risks across seven categories: (1) providing generalized health advice; (2) encouraging disordered behaviors; (3) supporting symptom concealment; (4) creating thinspiration; (5) reinforcing negative self-beliefs; (6) promoting excessive focus on the body; and (7) perpetuating narrow views about eating disorders. Our results demonstrate how certain user interactions with generative AI systems intersect with clinical features of eating disorders in ways that may intensify risk. We discuss implications of our work, including approaches for risk assessment, safeguard design, and participatory evaluation practices with domain experts.

Benchmarks play a significant role in how researchers and the public understand generative AI systems. However, the widespread use of benchmark scores to communicate about model capabilities has led to criticisms of validity, especially whether benchmarks test what they claim to test (i.e. construct validity) and whether benchmark evaluations are representative of how models are used in the wild (i.e. ecological validity). In this work we explore how to create an LLM benchmark that addresses these issues by taking a human-centered approach. We focus on designing a domain-oriented benchmark for journalism practitioners, drawing on insights from a workshop of 23 journalism professionals. Our workshop findings surface specific challenges that inform benchmark design opportunities, which we instantiate in a case study that addresses underlying criticisms and specific domain concerns. Through our findings and design case study, this work provides design guidance for developing benchmarks that are better tuned to specific domains.

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) systems represent a critical technology with far-reaching implications across multiple domains of society. However, their deployment entails a range of risks and challenges that require careful evaluation. To date, there has been a lack of comprehensive, interdisciplinary studies offering a systematic comparison between open-source and proprietary (closed) generative AI systems, particularly regarding their respective advantages and drawbacks. This study aims to: i) critically evaluate and compare the characteristics, opportunities, and challenges of open and closed generative AI models; and ii) propose foundational elements for the development of an Open, Public, and Safe Gen AI framework. As a methodology, we adopted a combined approach that integrates three methods: literature review, critical analysis, and comparative analysis. The proposed framework outlines key dimensions, openness, public governance, and security, as essential pillars for shaping the future of trustworthy and inclusive Gen AI. Our findings reveal that open models offer greater transparency, auditability, and flexibility, enabling independent scrutiny and bias mitigation. In contrast, closed systems often provide better technical support and ease of implementation, but at the cost of unequal access, accountability, and ethical oversight. The research also highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder governance, environmental sustainability, and regulatory frameworks in ensuring responsible development.

There is much discussion of the false outputs that generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok create. In popular terminology, these have been dubbed AI hallucinations. However, deeming these AI outputs hallucinations is controversial, with many claiming this is a metaphorical misnomer. Nevertheless, in this paper, I argue that when viewed through the lens of distributed cognition theory, we can better see the dynamic and troubling ways in which inaccurate beliefs, distorted memories and self-narratives, and delusional thinking can emerge through human-AI interactions; examples of which are popularly being referred to as cases of AI psychosis. In such cases, I suggest we move away from thinking about how an AI system might hallucinate at us, by generating false outputs, to thinking about how, when we routinely rely on generative AI to help us think, remember, and narrate, we can come to hallucinate with AI. This can happen when AI introduces errors into the distributed cognitive process, but it can also happen when AI sustains, affirms, and elaborates on our own delusional thinking and self-narratives, such as in the case of Jaswant Singh Chail. I also examine how the conversational style of chatbots can lead them to play a dual-function, both as a cognitive artefact and a quasi-Other with whom we co-construct our beliefs, narratives, and our realities. It is this dual function, I suggest, that makes generative AI an unusual, and particularly seductive, case of distributed cognition.

--This paper introduces a system for generating interior design layouts based on user inputs, such as room type, style, and furniture preferences. CLIP extracts relevant furniture from a dataset, and a layout that contains furniture and a prompt are fed to the Stable Diffusion with ControlNet to generate a design that incorporates the selected furniture. The design is then evaluated by classifiers to ensure alignment with the user's inputs, offering an automated solution for realistic interior design. I. Introduction Interior design has become increasingly popular as people seek more comfort and personalization in their living spaces. While hiring professional designers is common for full-home projects, redesigning a single room--such as a bedroom--may not justify the cost or effort involved in hiring such services.Additionally, many individuals who prefer to furnish their rooms using items from specific stores like IKEA often feel uncertain about whether suggested furniture--based on their selected categories (e.g., sofa, table)--will suit the room's size, layout, and style.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems currently contribute negatively to the production of digital waste, via the associated energy consumption and the related CO2 emissions. At this moment, a discussion is urgently needed on the replication of harmful consumer behavior, such as overconsumption, in the digital space. We outline our previous work on the climate implications of commercially available generative AI systems and the sentiment of generative AI users when confronted with AI-related climate research. We expand on this work via a discussion of digital overconsumption and waste, other related societal impacts, and a possible solution pathway