Can the biggest problems in AI be solved by philosophy? Some of the biggest challenges in artificial intelligence are being worked on not by computer scientists head down in code but by philosophers lured from academia into jobs at AI firms. The philosophers are tasked with making the next generation of models more capable and reliable, but they also shed light on the mystery of consciousness and whether intelligence can be replicated in software alone. Jonathan Birch at the London School of Economics and Political Science says AI companies are the big employers of philosophy PhDs right now, with offers of interesting work, large salaries and stock options proving too tempting for many to resist. "Topics that have been researched in philosophy departments for decades - how to make rational decisions, how to systematise moral principles, what counts as thinking or reasoning or introspection, what counts as evidence of consciousness - are suddenly of massive value to AI companies," says Birch. "So, naturally, we are seeing a huge brain drain."

Lost books by ancient philosophers recovered from'unreadable' scrolls Long-lost works of ancient philosophy have been recovered from papyrus scrolls that were scorched by the AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius and thought to be impossible to read. For the first time, researchers have used AI to extract the entire surviving text from super-high-resolution 3D scans of a scroll without unrolling it. The scrolls come from the library of Herculaneum, which was buried along with Pompeii nearly 2000 years ago. Scholars have been trying to read the carbonised scrolls, which resemble lumps of charcoal, since the library was discovered in 1752. Physically unwrapping them risks their destruction and the ink they are written in is mostly indistinguishable from the charred papyri - at least to human eyes.

The claim that the AI community, or society at large, should'democratize AI' has attracted considerable critical attention and controversy. Two core problems have arisen and remain unsolved: conceptual disagreement persists about what democratizing AI means; normative disagreement persists over whether democratizing AI is ethically and politically desirable. We identify eight common AI democratization traps: democratization-skeptical arguments that seem plausible at first glance, but turn out to be misconceptions. We develop arguments about how to resist each trap. We conclude that, while AI democratization may well have drawbacks, we should be cautious about dismissing AI democratization prematurely and for the wrong reasons. We offer a constructive roadmap for developing alternative conceptual and normative approaches to democratizing AI that successfully avoid the traps.

The great German philosopher, who died in March, understood how much depended on a principled public sphere. Habermas emerged from the uncompromising Frankfurt School, but his work was considerably less fatalistic. You wake up and brace yourself for the barrage of toxic gibberish that constitutes the modern public sphere. Your e-mail is overrun with spam, scams, and smut. There are voice mails from no one about nothing. A glance at the news reveals that the President is continuing to spew lies and obscenities; that a trillionaire is peddling white-supremacist propaganda on a social-media platform he owns; that a chart-topping musical artist is praising Hitler, or apologizing for praising Hitler, or praising Hitler once again. Publications from the on down employ clickbait headlines that treat you like a starving rat in a Pavlovian experiment. A.I. systems simulate the experience of talking to an arrogant ten-year-old boy who knows far less than he thinks he does. When pressed, the chatbots admit that they cannot "naturally understand human morality, dignity, culture, or meaning." It all adds up to a continuous discursive tinnitus--a buzz of random, fake, stupid, sinister chatter that nobody wants and nobody can stop. The person who should have been best able to explain how we got here was the great German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who illuminated how a feisty, principled public sphere is integral to democracy. But Habermas died in March, at the age of ninety-six, and, although he remained active until his final months, commenting on Ukraine, Gaza, and Eurobonds, he struggled to understand the turn history had taken. As a teen-ager in 1945, he had witnessed American soldiers enter his home town of Gummersbach, near Cologne, carrying messages of freedom and openness. Eight decades later, he watched American voters choose a leader who had advertised his fascistic bent in blood-and-soil rhetoric, fantasies of punitive violence, and a taste for bombastic architectural kitsch.

Silicon Valley is turning to ethicists to shape the future of AI. Philosophy has long suffered an unfortunate reputation as pedantic and abstruse. In one of the most prominent debates of the 20th century, philosophers spent a great deal of energy arguing over what means. Paul Graham, the legendary tech investor, studied philosophy as a college student, which seemed "an impressively impractical thing to do," as he later wrote. But over time, Graham became disillusioned: "I kept taking philosophy courses and they kept being boring," he explained .

Plus: French company Capgemini has confirmed it's no longer working with ICE The US Department of Homeland Security is using AI video generators from Google and Adobe to make and edit content shared with the public, a new document reveals. The document, released on Wednesday, provides an inventory of which commercial AI tools DHS uses for tasks ranging from generating drafts of documents to managing cybersecurity. It comes as immigration agencies have flooded social media with content to support President Trump's mass deportation agenda--some of which appears to be made with AI--and as workers in tech have put pressure on their employers to denounce the agencies' activities. For the last couple of years, I've been following the progress of a group of individuals who believe death is humanity's "core problem." Put simply, they say death is wrong--for everyone. They've even said it's morally wrong.

Reid Hoffman Wants Silicon Valley to'Stand Up' Against the Trump Administration The LinkedIn cofounder and frequent Trump target has a simple message for his peers: "Just speak up about the things that you think are true." Reid Hoffman doesn't do much in half measures. He cofounded LinkedIn, of course, and helped bankroll companies including Meta and Airbnb in their startup days. He has also fashioned himself, via books, podcasts, and other public appearances, as something of a public intellectual--a pro-capitalist philosopher who still insists that tech can be a force for good. Most recently, Hoffman has emerged as one of Silicon Valley's most prominent defenders of artificial intelligence . His newest book, 2025's, makes the case that AI won't diminish human capacity but will instead amplify it. Hoffman even relied on AI to make one of the most unconventional--and perhaps uncomfortable, depending on your view of AI-generated creativity--Christmas gifts I've heard of lately. Whatever you think of Hoffman's utopian views on AI, credit where due: He's also a very outspoken critic of President Trump--a rare trait in a tech world that's grown increasingly quiet, or cozy, when it comes to the cruelties of the US administration. Hoffman's overt political views haven't been without consequence: Trump has twice threatened to launch investigations into him, most recently calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi to dig into Hoffman's ties to Jeffrey Epstein . He has subsequently called for the government to release the Epstein files in full.) Despite those threats, Hoffman isn't pulling punches: When we sat down to tape this episode in mid-December, he readily called out the administration for degrading American government, criticized his peers for keeping their heads down, and urged Silicon Valley to stop pretending that neutrality is a virtue. If only more billionaires were saying it. So glad to have you here. I'm glad to be here. We like to start these conversations with some very fast questions. What's the hardest lesson you've ever had to learn? Probably when to give up.

This paper, introducing a novel method in philo-matics, draws on Wittgenstein's concept of family resemblance from analytic philosophy to develop a clustering algorithm for machine learning. According to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (1953), family resemblance holds that members of a concept or category are connected by overlapping similarities rather than a single defining property. Consequently, a family of entities forms a chain of items sharing overlapping traits. This philosophical idea naturally lends itself to a graph-based approach in machine learning. Accordingly, we propose the Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance (WFR) clustering algorithm and its kernel variant, kernel WFR. This algorithm computes resemblance scores between neighboring data instances, and after thresholding these scores, a resemblance graph is constructed. The connected components of this graph define the resulting clusters. Simulations on benchmark datasets demonstrate that WFR is an effective nonlinear clustering algorithm that does not require prior knowledge of the number of clusters or assumptions about their shapes.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. In the run-up to Valentine's Day, Microsoft saw a surge in conversations about relationships and personal development. Microsoft has released a new report showing what people used its AI assistant Copilot for in 2025. The analysis is based on 37.5 million de-identified conversations and shows that in addition to productivity, Copilot is used for health, relationships and personalized guidance. Health was particularly prevalent on mobile, with users turning to Copilot around the clock for tips on exercise, routines, and wellness.

Large language models exhibit intelligence without genuine epistemic understanding, exposing a key gap: the absence of epistemic architecture. This paper introduces the Structured Cognitive Loop (SCL) as an executable epistemological framework for emergent intelligence. Unlike traditional AI research asking "what is intelligence?" (ontological), SCL asks "under what conditions does cognition emerge?" (epistemological). Grounded in philosophy of mind and cognitive phenomenology, SCL bridges conceptual philosophy and implementable cognition. Drawing on process philosophy, enactive cognition, and extended mind theory, we define intelligence not as a property but as a performed process -- a continuous loop of judgment, memory, control, action, and regulation. SCL makes three contributions. First, it operationalizes philosophical insights into computationally interpretable structures, enabling "executable epistemology" -- philosophy as structural experiment. Second, it shows that functional separation within cognitive architecture yields more coherent and interpretable behavior than monolithic prompt based systems, supported by agent evaluations. Third, it redefines intelligence: not representational accuracy but the capacity to reconstruct its own epistemic state through intentional understanding. This framework impacts philosophy of mind, epistemology, and AI. For philosophy, it allows theories of cognition to be enacted and tested. For AI, it grounds behavior in epistemic structure rather than statistical regularity. For epistemology, it frames knowledge not as truth possession but as continuous reconstruction within a phenomenologically coherent loop. We situate SCL within debates on cognitive phenomenology, emergence, normativity, and intentionality, arguing that real progress requires not larger models but architectures that realize cognitive principles structurally.