Writing contests face "a literary version of the ruined world" in Blade Runner, writes CNN. "Anxiety and suspicion about robot infiltrators are everywhere — and so are people claiming to hunt the robots down." Multiple companies now offer products that promise to spot the difference, with often contradictory, biased or erratic results. The makers of Pangram, an AI detection platform that has been cited as authoritative in many of the recent controversies, claim it can distinguish between human and synthetic writing with near-perfect accuracy... The company's own estimates claim that false positives — in which the tool wrongly reports that a piece of human writing was created — are 1 in 10,000 and shrinking. Peer-reviewed studies from the University of Chicago and the University of Brussels support that claim, though one 2025 study from the University of Maryland found that Pangram erroneously labeled 2% of documents as AI.

A widely referenced 2023 Stanford study that found AI writing detectors produced higher rates of false positives on writing from non-native English speakers was conducted before Pangram was created. Pangram ran an internal study using a database of non-native English texts and self-reported that false positive rate was around 8 in 10,000... Given the thousands upon thousands of pieces of writing published each day, a 1 in 10,000 chance of a false accusation — let alone an 8 in 10,000 chance — means that even the most trusted AI detector is going to be wrong, and wrong about a lot of people.

Pangram isn't able to tell users the truth about someone's writing, but it is able to introduce something much more complicated: doubt. Unless an accused writer confesses to using an LLM, there is no bulletproof way to prove an accusation, short of being given full access to someone's computer history and finding the chatbot prompts... To some people and institutions on the literary side, using automated AI writing detectors to fight the influx of AI writing is just trading one form of technological domination for another.
Pangram "has entered the public consciousness at a time of distrust that goes beyond writing," CNN notes, when people want to block "at least some of the daily overflow of misinformation and misrepresentation" recently studied by John Warner, the author of More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI .

But he's one of the people who believes AI-detecting tools can create a new dependence on another kind of machine. "Like all other technology of automation, that is going to de-skill people from discerning these things for themselves."

Google chopped down a quarter of a million trees in a rural Finnish town, reports the Guardian, noting that Google "illegally stripped the entire area... taking even the top soil with it... [A]ll that remains is a vast expanse of mud."

Google was then ordered to temporarily stop work by the Finnish Licensing and Supervision Authority, because it turns out Google "failed to complete the necessary environmental impact assessments before clearcutting the land." Futurism notes one result was wolves descending on a nearby village: In the felling-site near the Finnish village of Otanmäki, the ensuing loss of prey has forced packs of wolves to search for food elsewhere: nearby villages. "We had wolves coming into the village because all the wild animals moved out of the forest," 53-year-old Otanmäki resident Anni Ranta told the Guardian. "They fled."
An ecologist estimates that an additional 150,000 trees were chopped at another data center site, according to the Guardian, and because the trees were illegally chopped down, they can't be sold to timber companies.

And Futurism notes it's just the latest ecological issue facing data center buildouts: In West Virginia, a grove of critically endangered Chestnut trees is under threat of being bulldozed to make way for a new Anthropic hyperscale facility. Outside of Fort Wayne, a chunk of Indiana's once-bountiful wetlands is being tilled to fit a new Google data center. In Southern New Jersey, a data center operator was recently slapped with a $1 million fine after inspectors uncovered 62 illegal gas generators belching exhaust into the surrounding environment.
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.

Microsoft has revealed pay-as-you-go pricing for Xbox Cloud Gaming, with introductory packages costing $3.99 for 10 hours, $7.99 for 25 hours, or $11.99 for 50 hours. Starting in November, Game Pass subscribers will receive only 5 to 15 included cloud-gaming hours depending on their tier and will have to buy additional time -- even to stream games they've already purchased. Gizmodo reports: Back in September, before these changes were announced, you paid full purchase price for a game that isn't in the Game Pass library on the assumption that you'd be able to play it via cloud streaming. Maybe your hardware doesn't meet the specs for this fancy new game. Maybe your gaming PC exploded/got stuck on a ship/had a component fail. Maybe you just want to be able to play it in bed on your laptop. Whatever. Now you find that in addition to the cost of the game you bought, you're going to be paying by the hour to play it once your monthly allotment of hours is up. If this is you, I expect you're not particularly amused. Thankfully, Microsoft notes that the playtime you purchase "remains available until it's used," so you won't have to worry about losing any unused time between gaming sessions.

For the first time, the UN has declared that exceeding the Paris Agreement's 1.5C warming limit is "imminent and unavoidable." "We are now saying this window has closed, but we can open it again by making the overshoot as brief as possible," UN Environment Program Executive Director Inger Andersen said on a call with reporters. "This is about how to find a way back as shortly and as quickly as possible with as limited an overshoot as possible." CNN reports: Past reports have examined the distance between countries' emissions reduction commitments and what it would take to limit global warming to 1.5 C above preindustrial levels. However, this year's report redefines the gap. Instead, it examines new emissions overshoot scenarios, and what it would take to limit peak warming to just 1.7 to 1.8 degrees C before bringing temperatures back down to 1.5 C through emissions cuts and the use of carbon removal technologies.

The report makes clear that every additional fraction of a degree of warming above 1.5 C "raises the risk of irreversible changes including in ice sheets, permafrost carbon, ocean circulation, and coral systems, along with devastating human impacts." Each added fraction of a degree of warming can have an "immense" impact "as measured in terms of damage, cost and loss of lives," said climate scientist Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania. Mann was not involved in producing the UNEP report.

According to the UNEP, which is based in Nairobi, the lowest overshoot scenario would keep peak warming to between 1.7 and 1.8 degrees C and return global average temperatures to at or below 1.5 C by 2100. However, to follow such a pathway, global greenhouse gas emissions would need to be slashed by far more than anything currently on the table at the upcoming COP31 talks. This would require an 18% cut by 2030, 45% by 2035, and 69% by 2040, relative to 2025 levels.

Meeting this lowest-possible overshoot scenario would require a tripling of renewable electricity capacity by 2035, and dramatic cuts to fossil fuels, including the phaseout of coal by 2040, the report states. In addition, there would need to be a major scaling up of carbon removal technologies, which so far have not been proven to work at such a large scale. In stark contrast to these figures, the fulfillment of existing emissions reduction pledges would only yield a 5-to-8% emissions cut by 2030 and an 11-to-15% reduction by 2035, the report found. This would be associated with a peak warming of about 2.6 degrees C.

If countries simply follow their current policies, then warming could reach a peak of about 2.8 C. That estimate has increased since last year, in part because of the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement and retraction of its emissions reduction commitments, the report states. Even the scenario that assumes countries meet their existing reduction commitments, and nations with net-zero pledges succeed in fulfilling them, still brings warming to a peak of 2.1 C.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Axios: Major U.S. banks are detecting unauthorized third-party AI agents operating inside customer accounts, with some agents attempting to take actions that appear to be independent of user instructions, sources tell Axios. The difficulty in distinguishing between a human and an unauthorized bot is forcing banks to block the technology and rapidly rewrite their terms of service. [...] This presents significant security risks: banking executives fear the steps agents with login access might take, especially if a user has granted purchase authority or the ability to shift funds. In other instances, some banks have tracked activity when agents -- programmed to fulfill requests or complete tasks on a user's behalf -- contact call centers or appear to take actions independent of user instructions, the people said.

Bank executives described the situation as horrifying, with one official saying the industry has grave concerns about agents gaining access to customer accounts and taking steps that could impact user finances. The concerns are at the root of the decision by several banks to restrict third-party AI agent access, the people said. Morgan Stanley has begun blocking third-party agents from accessing its platforms, sources familiar with the decision said. JPMorgan, Bank of America and Citi are also restricting agents. [...] Many banks are broadly not able to parse whether agent account activity is user-directed, sources said.

[...] On one hand, banks are best positioned to respond to the threats and opportunities of AI given their cash on hand and experience as critical infrastructure. But money isn't necessarily enough to solve this problem, one source said, because of how quickly the technology is developing and revealing new weaknesses in real time. Banks are investing in preventing worst-case scenarios, but they are also preparing for when those could happen, including with "day after" scenario planning that would allow them to quickly secure or restore customer access, sources said.

Google is funding one of the nation's largest "virtual power plants," paying homes and businesses indirectly to reduce electricity consumption during periods of peak demand so more grid capacity can be available for data centers. Under its expanded deal with Voltus, the program could provide up to 1,070 megawatts in the Mid-Atlantic PJM grid -- roughly the output of a large nuclear reactor. The New York Times reports: That electricity won't come from new power plants. Instead, Voltus will sign up homes and businesses and give them financial incentives to curb their usage when local power demand is high or the grid is strained. Many of these reductions could occur automatically, such as through smart thermostats that dial back air-conditioning during peak summer hours or batteries that can provide temporary on-site power.

Each of these tweaks frees up only a small amount of power on its own. But by aggregating them across thousands of businesses and homes, Voltus says it can reliably provide lots of extra capacity when it's most needed, and do so within a few years. While tech companies will likely ultimately need to build traditional power plants if they want to keep building large data centers, this approach could be a faster, cheaper and less-polluting option in the interim. "We really see virtual power plants as a critical short-term solution," said Ellen Zuckerman, head of energy market development for North and South America at Google. "It's a way to invest in our communities, really double down on our clean energy ambition, but also meet capacity at speed and scale."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Google is facing a backlash from some staff members over the company's deployment of its AI technology for military use. The BBC has spoken to several tech workers who have either recently resigned from Google's AI company, Google DeepMind, or are in the process of leaving, over concerns with the tech firm's military contracts. Sofia Liguori, a London-based research engineer, is one of them. She resigned from Google DeepMind this week and spoke about her concerns exclusively with the BBC, despite her contract restricting her from doing so.

"Realizing my company is pushing more and more for AI systems in military operations makes me feel ashamed to work at Google," Liguori said, speaking in a personal capacity. [...] After working for the company for three years, Liguori said she decided to resign over Google's increasing work with the US and Israeli militaries. "I don't agree with this direction and this has led me to lose faith in my company being true to its stated ethical values," she said. Those values, according to Google's AI Principles, include implementing AI with "human oversight" and aligning the technology with "international law and human rights." But former and current staff at the company, and experts the BBC spoke to, said they were concerned about the level of human oversight at critical moments.

The tech workers said they are particularly worried about the AI military deals signed this year, because they greatly increase the scope of what the Pentagon can use the technology for. Andreas Kirsch, an AI researcher, also resigned from Google DeepMind earlier this month over his concerns. Kirsch told the BBC that he believes "Google's governance and oversight are not sufficient or meaningful enough to deploy AI safely and responsibly in military and classified settings" or "to develop artificial superintelligence safely in the future." "Google seems to have no right to control or veto how the Pentagon uses its AI and also seems to have limited visibility into how it's being deployed," he added.

[...] Employees at Google have told the BBC that staff are scared to speak out about AI safety and its uses in warfare because their employment contracts prohibit them from publicly criticizing the company. "In principle I'm not allowed to criticize Google for the duration of my life," Sofia Liguori told the BBC. But she decided to do so "because I believe it's important for these things to be known and I also think that talking about facts is not criticizing." Liguori added that at Google "people are scared of retaliation and putting their career at risk. You feel you are being watched, you can't speak."

A current employee at Google DeepMind, who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, told the BBC that "a lot of motivated employees who signed up for [the company's] original mission could leave -- but there's also a pipeline of people at the start of the careers who could fill those positions. It could be a changing of the guard." Another Google DeepMind staff member, who also wished to remain anonymous, told the BBC: "A lot of people have left the company that feel strongly about this [how Google DeepMind has changed its ethics position]." "Some people are putting up a fight, others are thinking: 'it's a big company. What do you expect to change?'", the employee said. In response, a Google spokesperson told the BBC: "We work with public sector organisations worldwide and follow a consistent process for reviewing and entering these contracts, including compliance with our acceptable use policies and AI principles."

"We also have dedicated channels for employees to safely raise any concerns -- ranging from business ethics to misconduct -- and have strict workplace policies in place to prevent retaliation of any kind."

A CBC investigation found that more than 1.5 million Canadian Crime Stoppers tips spanning 25 years were exposed in a breach of the P3 Global Intel tip-management platform. About 850,000 records contained personally identifiable information, including addresses, phone numbers, emails, license plates and some banking details. Longtime Slashdot reader doconnor shares the report: The data was stolen last March by hacktivist collective Internet Yiff Machine. In a manifesto, the group said it wanted to disprove the claim by P3 Global Intel -- the company hired by Crime Stoppers to manage its tips -- that the platform was "anonymous" and "secure." A copy of the hacked data was made available to researchers and journalists, including CBC, by Distributed Denial of Secrets, a U.S. non-profit that archives and publishes hacked and leaked documents it deems to be in the public interest. The report found that more than 4,300 Crime Stoppers tipsters identified themselves by their full name, with hundreds of records containing staff warnings that individuals had "self-identified" or been "exposed," yet their information remained unredacted.

The leaked data included sensitive allegations involving murder, terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime, with nearly 49,000 tips linked to cases cleared through arrests or criminal charges. Cybersecurity experts criticized the retention of decades-old records... "If a tip is closed, does that need to stay online?" asked cybersecurity expert Ben Coon. "The answer to that, to me, is no."

The RCMP was initially told Canadian data was unaffected, then assured that exposed Canadian records contained no personally identifiable information. This appears to contradict the CBC's findings. Furthermore, affected individuals have not been systematically notified because contacting them could further jeopardize their anonymity.

"For a system that has been designed to promise anonymity to the users, that has failed categorically," said Prof. Ali Dehghantanha, the Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity and Threat Intelligence at the University of Guelph.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: We haven't heard many details about Microsoft's upcoming "Project Helix" gaming hardware since the company announced it in March as a device that will "play your Xbox and PC games." In a new wide-ranging profile of Xbox CEO Asha Sharma, though, Fortune alludes to a dual release strategy for upcoming Microsoft gaming hardware, with "a next-generation handheld device" planned by the end of next year and a 2028 holiday season console release that could cost between $1,200 and $1,800.

That future console price range is based on what has "internally been projected" at the company, according to Fortune. But the price for consumers could come down if "Microsoft decides to subsidize the cost," the outlet says, as many console makers have done in the past. While a $1,200 starting price would be historically high for the game console market, even accounting for inflation, it also reflects a new normal: The slowdown in Moore's Law and AI-driven component shortages mean cutting-edge gaming hardware just isn't as cheap as it used to be. This year, the Steam Machine broke the $1,000 starting price, while the 2-year-old technology in the PlayStation 5 Pro is now going for $900, and the 6-year-old Xbox Series X now starts at $750.

A New Mexico judge has ordered Meta to pay $25 billion after a jury found Facebook liable for deceiving users about privacy during the Cambridge Analytica scandal. State Attorney General Raul Torrez called it "one of the largest, if not the single largest state verdict against a company in American history." While Meta plans to appeal the ruling, the funds that are to be collected will go toward state education spending. The Associated Press reports: Jurors in September found Meta liable for over 43 million violations of New Mexico consumer protection laws when a political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, harvested Facebook user data to generate targeted political ads for the 2016 election. Forty-eight other states settled with Facebook in a nationwide case, but New Mexico chose to take the social media company to court on its own. [...] During the trial, jurors assessed whether Facebook misled users about privacy and content moderation 34 separate times. State prosecutors, though, argued Facebook's statements deceived the entire population of New Mexico and extended beyond social media users.

In the end, jurors agreed with this premise and found Facebook liable for 2.1 million violations on certain counts, bringing the total number of violations to over 43 million. Facebook's attorneys have argued in subsequent court filings that the state's consumer protection laws don't apply to people in New Mexico who weren't using the platform at the time. [...] In one of the few wins for the defense, jurors found the state didn't prove that Facebook made false claims about removing harmful content, including misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.

The state said the company favored certain accounts and allowed for violent or inaccurate content to proliferate. Attorney Randi McGinn said in her closing argument for the state that Facebook profited off harmful content, which CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied during his video deposition. Zuckerberg said the company has to carefully balance freedom of speech with content moderation. Attorneys for Facebook said the company has adapted its policies since the state's lawsuit was filed in 2021 and that it removes 99% of content that violates standards.

Microsoft has reportedly abandoned plans to serve as the anchor customer for Britain's largest proposed AI supercomputer after learning that the project's Essex data center might not receive sufficient grid power until the early to mid-2030s. "Its departure leaves Nscale without a publicly announced customer for the site, although the neocloud insists the project is still going ahead," reports The Register. From the report: When the deal was announced in September 2025, the plan was to pack 23,040 Nvidia GB300 GPUs into a 50MW facility, with room to expand to 90MW. Microsoft would use the computing power for its Azure cloud services, with the first chips expected in early 2027. One important detail remained: how to power it.

As The Guardian reported last month, UK Power Networks warned Nscale that the grid capacity needed might not be available until the 2030s. A UK Power Networks spokesperson told The Register it could not discuss individual connections due to obligations under Section 105 of the Utilities Act. "However, in general, many datacenters, whilst they can connect to our distribution network, are awaiting works on the national transmission network which we do not own," the spokesperson said.

Nscale, meanwhile, isn't letting the small matter of losing its biggest customer dampen its enthusiasm. "We remain committed to both the Loughton project and the UK and we are exploring alternative power sources for the site, in addition to other expansion sites in the UK. Our relationship with Microsoft remains strong and long-term, and this unfortunate London-wide grid issue has no impact on our other contracts," Nscale told The Register.

joshuark writes: Professor Christopher Marquis makes a provocative argument about business schools: "We need to abolish them." A 20-year business educator at Harvard, Cornell and Cambridge, Marquis argues in The New York Times and on LinkedIn that MBA programs sanctify profit-driven dealmaking at the expense of public life. "That's not the institution failing," he writes. "Sadly, it's the institution working." "Business school doesn't just hand out skills and a network," argues Marquis, "it quietly reshapes how people see the world, rewarding dealmaking, simplification, and optimization for financial metrics, while workers and communities become afterthoughts."

Marquis points to research suggesting that business-school-trained CEOs often benefit shareholders at the expense of workers, without delivering measurable improvements in company performance... "[W]hen a business-school-trained CEO takes over a firm, wages fall and labor's share of income drops, with no gain in productivity," writes Marquis. "In both the U.S. and Denmark, what passes for the 'managerial skill' of business-school graduates turns out to be a transfer of wealth away from workers and toward shareholders. Students deserve better than a machine that narrows their sense of what's possible."

TP-Link plans to begin assembling routers in Mississippi as early as 2027 after the FCC banned imports of new foreign-made consumer routers over security concerns. Engadget reports: The company has signed a letter of intent with manufacturer Key Tronic and, pending approval from regulators, TP-Link says stateside assembly of its routers could start at a Mississippi production line as soon as early 2027.

Once things are up and running, Wi-Fi 8 routers are expected to be among the first TP-Link products that Key Tronic assembles. TP-Link claims that the agreement is part of its "long-term effort to accelerate US investment in high-tech manufacturing and job creation, designing and assembling next-generation products for American consumers here on American soil."

The company said it will still have to source components from outside the US. "Many [components] are just not available from a domestic source, and this is not a TP-Link issue," TP-Link's corporate affairs officer Steve Kovsky told PC Mag. "This is an issue for all manufacturers that are trying to onshore manufacturing."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Elon Musk has said he will give every child in America a stake in SpaceX, his $2 trillion aerospace and artificial intelligence company, as tech firms face intensifying scrutiny over their impact on society. "Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America," he wrote on X on Monday. "This will be the first of many."

SpaceX only began trading publicly in June (and after the biggest initial public offering in history). The company's shares were trading for about $146 when the market closed on Friday. Musk's proposal was thin on detail. It is not clear how those shares would be distributed to the tens of millions of American children or whether all of them would even be eligible. According to the United States Census Bureau, there are roughly 73 million people under the age of 18, making Musk's potential giveaway worth about $10.7 billion at SpaceX's current share price. The move came in response to Anthropic's announcement on Sunday that it will commit at least 5% of its shares to a "Public Benefit Fund" that will donate money to social causes. "I recommend giving the shares directly to the public," Musk said in a reply to Anthropic's announcement. "This is what I will be doing."

America is "making an unprecedented attempt to revive three shuttered nuclear plants to meet rising energy demand," reports the Los Angeles Times,

"Two of the plants have contracts with Big Tech companies that will pay a premium to get large amounts of carbon-free energy for data centers..." No commercial nuclear reactor is known to have resumed generating electricity after beginning the decommissioning process that takes one out of service, though some reactors have restarted after long outages. The Department of Energy is lending as much as $4.4 billion to restart the Palisades Power Plant in Michigan, the Crane Clean Energy Center on Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island and the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Iowa to restore a combined 2.25 gigawatts of electricity, which can power roughly 2 million homes and businesses. All three of the plants closed before their licenses expired, largely because the electricity they produced was considered too expensive... Restarting a reactor is a fairly quick way to get a lot of electricity, and it's cheaper than building a new, large reactor, said nuclear engineering expert Todd Allen...

Edwin Lyman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the taxpayer money being used should go toward addressing safety risks. For example, most U.S. plants were built between 1970 and 1990 and were designed to withstand natural disasters of that era, said Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at UCS. But climate change is making extreme weather events more frequent and severe. "It's possible, if they set the right level of safety and spend the necessary funds to meet that, they could restore these plants to operable condition," he said. "That's not happening at this point...."

NextEra Energy and Google are collaborating to restart Duane Arnold by early 2029... Microsoft has a contract with the Crane Clean Energy Center on Three Mile Island just outside Harrisburg. The plant was the site of the nation's worst commercial nuclear power accident in 1979. The accident destroyed one reactor, leaving the plant with one functioning. In 2019, Constellation Energy's then-parent company Exelon shut down the functioning reactor, saying it was losing money and that Pennsylvania lawmakers had refused to subsidize it. Constellation Energy announced in 2024 that it would spend $1.6 billion to restart the reactor under a 20-year agreement with Microsoft. It hopes to bring the plant back online in 2027...

Palisades is expected to be the first nuclear plant in the world to resume generating power after beginning the decommissioning process.