We asked tech CEOs, journalists, entertainers, students, and more about the promise and peril of artificial intelligence. The future never feels fully certain. But in this time of rapid, intense transformation--political, technological, cultural, scientific--it's as difficult as it ever has been to get a sense of what's around the next corner. Here at WIRED, we're obsessed with what comes next. Our pursuit of the future most often takes the form of vigorously reported stories, in-depth videos, and interviews with the people helping define it.

Just over half (51%) of published novelists in the UK say that artificial intelligence is likely to end up entirely replacing their work as fiction writers, a new report from the University of Cambridge has found. Close to two-thirds (59%) of novelists say they know their work has been used to train AI Large Language Models (LLMs) without permission or payment. Over a third (39%) of novelists say their income has already taken a hit from generative AI, for example due to loss of other work that facilitates novel writing. Most (85%) novelists expect their future income to be driven down by AI. In new research for Cambridge's Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy (MCTD), Dr Clementine Collett surveyed 258 published novelists earlier this year, as well as 74 industry insiders - from commissioning editors to literary agents - to gauge how AI is viewed and used in the world of British fiction.*

This paper investigates simultaneous preference and metric learning from a crowd of respondents. A set of items represented by $d$-dimensional feature vectors and paired comparisons of the form ``item $i$ is preferable to item $j$'' made by each user is given. Our model jointly learns a distance metric that characterizes the crowd's general measure of item similarities along with a latent ideal point for each user reflecting their individual preferences. This model has the flexibility to capture individual preferences, while enjoying a metric learning sample cost that is amortized over the crowd. We first study this problem in a noiseless, continuous response setting (i.e., responses equal to differences of item distances) to understand the fundamental limits of learning. Next, we establish prediction error guarantees for noisy, binary measurements such as may be collected from human respondents, and show how the sample complexity improves when the underlying metric is low-rank. Finally, we establish recovery guarantees under assumptions on the response distribution. We demonstrate the performance of our model on both simulated data and on a dataset of color preference judgements across a large number of users.

While the global integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into veterinary medicine is accelerating, its adoption dynamics in major markets such as China remain uncharacterized. This paper presents the first exploratory analysis of AI perception and adoption among veterinary professionals in China, based on a cross-sectional survey of 455 practitioners conducted in mid-2025. We identify a distinct "adoption paradox": although 71.0% of respondents have incorporated AI into their workflows, 44.6% of these active users report low familiarity with the technology. In contrast to the administrative-focused patterns observed in North America, adoption in China is practitioner-driven and centers on core clinical tasks, such as disease diagnosis (50.1%) and prescription calculation (44.8%). However, concerns regarding reliability and accuracy remain the primary barrier (54.3%), coexisting with a strong consensus (93.8%) for regulatory oversight. These findings suggest a unique "inside-out" integration model in China, characterized by high clinical utility but restricted by an "interpretability gap," underscoring the need for specialized tools and robust regulatory frameworks to safely harness AI's potential in this expanding market.

Pretrained Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, with education and research emerging as particularly impactful areas. Among current state-of-the-art LLMs, ChatGPT and DeepSeek exhibit strong capabilities in mathematics, science, medicine, literature, and programming. In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of these two LLMs through background technology analysis, empirical experiments, and a real-world user survey. The evaluation explores trade-offs among model accuracy, computational efficiency, and user experience in educational and research affairs. We benchmarked these LLMs performance in text generation, programming, and specialized problem-solving. Experimental results show that ChatGPT excels in general language understanding and text generation, while DeepSeek demonstrates superior performance in programming tasks due to its efficiency-focused design. Moreover, both models deliver medically accurate diagnostic outputs and effectively solve complex mathematical problems. Complementing these quantitative findings, a survey of students, educators, and researchers highlights the practical benefits and limitations of these models, offering deeper insights into their role in advancing education and research.

Using Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate user opinions has received growing attention. Yet LLMs, especially trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), are known to exhibit biases toward dominant viewpoints, raising concerns about their ability to represent users from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds. In this work, we examine the extent to which LLMs can simulate human responses to cross-domain survey questions through direct prompting and chain-of-thought prompting. We further propose a claim diversification method CLAIMSIM, which elicits viewpoints from LLM parametric knowledge as contextual input. Experiments on the survey question answering task indicate that, while CLAIMSIM produces more diverse responses, both approaches struggle to accurately simulate users. Further analysis reveals two key limitations: (1) LLMs tend to maintain fixed viewpoints across varying demographic features, and generate single-perspective claims; and (2) when presented with conflicting claims, LLMs struggle to reason over nuanced differences among demographic features, limiting their ability to adapt responses to specific user profiles.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a powerful technology, and thus, we have seen widespread adoption and use on software engineering teams. Most often, LLMs are designed as "general purpose" technologies meant to represent the general population. Unfortunately, this often means alignment with predominantly Western Caucasian narratives and misalignment with other cultures and populations that engage in collaborative innovation. In response to this misalignment, there have been recent efforts centered on the development of "culturally-informed" LLMs, such as ChatBlackGPT, that are capable of better aligning with historically marginalized experiences and perspectives. Despite this progress, there has been little effort aimed at supporting our ability to develop and evaluate culturally-informed LLMs. A recent effort proposed an approach for developing a national alignment benchmark that emphasizes alignment with national social values and common knowledge. However, given the range of cultural identities present in the United States (U.S.), a national alignment benchmark is an ineffective goal for broader representation. To help fill this gap in this US context, we propose a replication study that translates the process used to develop KorNAT, a Korean National LLM alignment benchmark, to develop CIVIQ, a Cultural Intelligence and Values Inference Quality benchmark centered on alignment with community social values and common knowledge. Our work provides a critical foundation for research and development aimed at cultural alignment of AI technologies in practice.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming education and the workforce, but access to AI learning opportunities in Africa remains uneven. With rapid demographic shifts and growing labour market pressures, AI has become a strategic development priority, making the demand for relevant skills more urgent. This study investigates how universities and industries engage in shaping AI education and workforce preparation, drawing on survey responses from five African countries (Ghana, Namibia, Rwanda, Kenya and Zambia). The findings show broad recognition of AI importance but limited evidence of consistent engagement, practical training, or equitable access to resources. Most respondents who rated the AI component of their curriculum as very relevant reported being well prepared for jobs, but financial barriers, poor infrastructure, and weak communication limit participation, especially among students and underrepresented groups. Respondents highlighted internships, industry partnerships, and targeted support mechanisms as critical enablers, alongside the need for inclusive governance frameworks. The results showed both the growing awareness of AI's potential and the structural gaps that hinder its translation into workforce capacity. Strengthening university-industry collaboration and addressing barriers of access, funding, and policy are central to ensuring that AI contributes to equitable and sustainable development across the continent.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has garnered considerable attention for its potential utility in research and scholarship. A growing body of work in sociology and related fields demonstrates both the potential advantages and risks of GenAI, but these studies are largely proof-of-concept or specific audits of models and products. We know comparatively little about how sociologists actually use GenAI in their research practices and how they view its present and future role in the discipline. In this paper, we describe the current landscape of GenAI use in sociological research based on a survey of authors in 50 sociology journals. Our sample includes both computational sociologists and non-computational sociologists and their collaborators. We find that sociologists primarily use GenAI to assist with writing tasks: revising, summarizing, editing, and translating their own work. Respondents report that GenAI saves time and that they are curious about its capabilities, but they do not currently feel strong institutional or field-level pressure to adopt it. Overall, respondents are wary of GenAI's social and environmental impacts and express low levels of trust in its outputs, but many believe that GenAI tools will improve over the next several years. We do not find large differences between computational and non-computational scholars in terms of GenAI use, attitudes, and concern; nor do we find strong patterns by familiarity or frequency of use. We discuss what these findings suggest about the future of GenAI in sociology and highlight challenges for developing shared norms around its use in research practice.