Jean-Paul Thorbjornsen, an Australian man in his mid-30s, with a rural Catholic upbringing, is a founder of THORChain, a blockchain through which users can swap one cryptocurrency for another and earn fees from making those swaps. THORChain is permissionless, so anyone can use it without getting prior approval from a centralized authority. As a decentralized network, the blockchain is built and run by operators located across the globe. During its early days, Thorbjornsen himself hid behind the pseudonym "leena" and used an AI-generated female image as his avatar. But around March 2024, he revealed his true identity as the mind behind the blockchain. If there is a central question around THORChain, it is this: Exactly who is responsible for its operations?

New Scientist changed the UK's freedom of information laws in 2025 By requesting copies of the then-UK technology secretary's ChatGPT logs, New Scientist set a precedent for how freedom of information laws apply to chatbot interactions, helping to hold governments to account Our successful request for Peter Kyle's ChatGPT logs stunned observers When I fired off an email at the start of 2025, I hadn't intended to set a legal precedent for how the UK government handles its interactions with AI chatbots, but that is exactly what happened. It all began in January when I read an interview with the then-UK tech secretary Peter Kyle in . Trying to suggest he used first-hand the technology his department was set up to regulate, Kyle said that he would often have conversations with ChatGPT. AI may blunt our thinking skills - here's what you can do about it That got me wondering: could I obtain his chat history? Freedom of information (FOI) laws are often deployed to obtain emails and other documents produced by public bodies, but past precedent has suggested that some private data - such as search queries - aren't eligible for release in this way. I was interested to see which way the chatbot conversations would be categorised.

Feedback is delighted to learn that researchers have discovered what Taylor Swift is accidentally doing to rescue the science of plants from mid-ness. We never miss a beat, so Feedback, prompted by assistant news editor and Swiftie Alexandra Thompson, has been taking a close look at a major paper in the Annals of Botany, published in August. It is called "Dance with plants: Taylor Swift's music videos as advance organizers for meaningful learning in botany" . The thesis is that high school students exhibit "a general low interest in plants", leading to "plant blindness". Teachers struggling to convey the magic of botany are repeating material and are getting sick of it.

The Download: Trump's impact on science, and meet our climate and energy honorees How Trump's policies are affecting early-career scientists--in their own words Every year MIT Technology Review celebrates accomplished young scientists, entrepreneurs, and inventors from around the world in our Innovators Under 35 list. We've just published the 2025 edition . This year, though, the context is different: The US scientific community is under attack. Since Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has fired top government scientists, targeted universities and academia, and made substantial funding cuts to the country's science and technology infrastructure. We asked our six most recent cohorts about both positive and negative impacts of the administration's new policies. Their responses provide a glimpse into the complexities of building labs, companies, and careers in today's political climate.

In The End of the World As We Know It, other writers are telling stories set in the post-apocalyptic world of Stephen King's The Stand One of my most anticipated books of the year is out this month: a collection of short stories set in the post-apocalyptic devastation of Stephen King's The Stand. I love a good end-times story, and King did it so well in this doorstopper of a book, first published in 1978. How will the writers he has invited to develop his "world" fare? Suitably depressed by these visions of the future, I'm then planning to pick myself up with New Scientist columnist Annalee Newitz's cosier take, Automatic Noodle, which comes complete with jolly robots and cooking. From thrillers (Artificial Wisdom) to more literary takes (Helm), Star Wars to the latest from the prolific Adrian Tchaikovsky, let's get reading!

President Donald Trump wants to ensure the US government only gives federal contracts to artificial intelligence developers whose systems are "free from ideological bias". But the new requirements could allow his administration to impose its own worldview on tech companies' AI models – and companies may face significant challenges and risks in trying to modify their models to comply. "The suggestion that government contracts should be structured to ensure AI systems are'objective' and'free from top-down ideological bias' prompts the question: objective according to whom?" says Becca Branum at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a public policy non-profit in Washington DC. The Trump White House's AI Action Plan, released on 23 July, recommends updating federal guidelines "to ensure that the government only contracts with frontier large language model (LLM) developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias". Trump signed a related executive order titled "Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government" on the same day.

We write a lot about robots here at New Scientist – the latest cutting-edge developments, the newest technology. But we also have a great deal of fondness for them in fiction, whether that's the super cute likes of WALL-E and BB-8, or the darker side of the robotic family, from the Terminator to Ava from Ex Machina. Last month, Sierra Greer's novel about the rebellion of a robot designed for intimacy, Annie Bot, won this year's Arthur C Clarke award, the UK's top prize for science fiction. It was described by judges as "a tightly-focused first person account of a robot designed to be the perfect companion who struggles to become free". Greer's win felt like the right moment to ask New Scientist staff to nominate their own favourite fictional robotic beings, from page or screen. After a bit of quibbling about what constitutes a robot, and a lot of people plumping for various Star Wars droids and Futurama creations, here, in no particular order, they are.

Feedback is New Scientist's popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit items you believe may amuse readers to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com Feedback has been dimly aware for a while that there is a slew of AI-generated music swamping platforms like Spotify. Our awareness was limited, we confess, because we are so old that we still prefer to listen to CDs. Still, we weren't too surprised when New Scientist's Timothy Revell told us about an indie rock band called The Velvet Sundown that appears to be entirely AI-generated, from their songs, which sound like the beige love-children of Coldplay and the Eagles, to their uncanny-valley Instagram photos, which look like rejected concept art from Daisy Jones & the Six.

Feedback is New Scientist's popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit items you believe may amuse readers to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com Recently, Feedback was delighted to peruse the raciest conference invitation we have ever received. We get a lot of conference invites from organisers labouring under the delusion we are doing something akin to science journalism, and they are mostly a little prosaic: what's new in G-protein signalling, more findings about the biology of molluscs, that kind of thing. Here is the opening line: "From its groundbreaking inception in London to its spectacular evolution in the vibrant heart of China, the Love and Sex with Robots Conference is gearing up for its most thrilling chapters yet: its landmark 12th International edition, scheduled for June 2026."

Even if you have never had your smartphone stolen, you probably know someone who has. In London, 80,000 phones were stolen last year alone. And as victims of phone theft know, while the loss of a pricey gadget can sting, the dreary administrative slog in replacing a device that runs your entire life can, in some ways, be worse. So why can't we stop phone thieves – and is there a better way to protect your personal data? The answer is partly down to the numerous ways that criminals profit from stolen phones, but it is also about technology firms prioritising usability over security and international governments failing to arrive at a global solution.