OpenAI acquires TBPN to accelerate global conversations around AI and support independent media, expanding dialogue with builders, businesses, and the broader tech community.

Codex now includes pay-as-you-go pricing for ChatGPT Business and Enterprise, providing teams a more flexible option to start and scale adoption.

Life after retirement often brings a mix of calm, curiosity, and new possibilities. Many people step … Life After Retirement: How to Enjoy a Comfortable FutureRead more The post Life After Retirement: How to Enjoy a Comfortable Future appeared first on .

Discussion | Link

Discussion | Link

Maskot/Getty The global economy is undergoing major transformation as artificial intelligence (AI) filters into almost every industry – reshaping business models and investment decisions. For those who sit on a company’s board, setting overall strategy and holding management to account, the shift is raising the bar on what’s required. Board members need to understand the new technology they’re investing in. They must also be equipped to oversee complex technological risks. Given this, you’d expect to see large companies stacking their boards with directors who have science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) expertise. But that isn’t the case. Our new research shows that at the largest 500 listed companies in Australia, many boards lack members with sufficient technological expertise. More than half had no directors with STEM expertise on their board. Here’s why that’s a problem – and why all of us have a stake in fixing it. What we found We examined the backgrounds and expertise of directors from the largest 500 firms listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) and compared board composition in 2007 to 2022. We were interested in whether the number of directors with STEM expertise had increased to match the significant technological advancements that had taken place over that time. We were surprised by the results. We found the backgrounds and expertise of directors from Australia’s largest firms changed very little over 15 years. Directors with STEM expertise remained underrepresented on boards, increasing from 8% to just 13% over the period. By comparison, directors with backgrounds in the traditional fields of accounting, banking and law occupied 42% of board seats (up from 40% in 2007). Directors with “C-suite” experience – roles such as chief executive officer, chief financial officer and so on – made up 35% of all board positions in 2022. Even in industries with a scientific focus, such as technology and health care, we found accountants and bankers still outnumbered directors with STEM expertise. Our study only goes up to 2022, when AI was relatively new on the scene. But newer data suggest the picture hasn’t changed much. The 2025 Watermark Search International Board Diversity Index (which covers the largest 300 companies on the ASX) paints a similar picture. Directors with expertise in accounting, financial, legal or general management backgrounds still dominated boards (75%). Why is this a problem? Research shows corporate strategy and investment decisions are shaped by the backgrounds and characteristics of the top management team – including board members. Our research makes a clear case for getting more STEM expertise into the boardroom. We found companies with greater STEM representation on their boards invested more in innovation and investors valued them more highly. This aligns with other research, which shows “innovativeness” is linked to better company performance, growth and survival. STEM expertise becomes even more valuable in low-tech industries or companies where the chief executive doesn’t have a STEM background. Here, a director can step in to provide technical expertise and fill critical gaps in innovation strategy and capabilities. Australia is falling behind On innovation more broadly, Australia is falling behind many of its peers. A recent independent report the federal government commissioned found Australia’s research and innovation system was “broken” and needed significant reform. But Australia still wants to be an innovation leader. This week, the federal government and global AI giant Anthropic signed a memorandum of understanding, backing plans to expand Australia’s AI infrastructure and attract big tech to Australia. Anthropic has previously announced it will open an office in Sydney this year. At the same time, data centre operators are attracting high-profile investors and billions in investment. There is clearly a strong appetite to invest in innovation and Australian firms that are willing to embrace it. The question is whether boards are adequately equipped to make the most of this momentum. Managing risks A lack of STEM expertise doesn’t just limit firms’ innovation, it also increases their exposure to cyber risks. With a cyber attack reported in Australia every six minutes this has become one of the biggest threats to business growth and profits. Major breaches have repeatedly made headlines in recent years, placing added pressure on boards to have robust cybersecurity measures in place. Regulators, including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, have reinforced this message, cautioning boards that cybersecurity is their responsibility. In the new global economy shaped by the opportunities of AI and the threat of cyberattacks, technology is no longer a back-office function. It’s at the forefront of company policy and strategy. To keep pace with this shift, companies should look to bring more technical expertise to the boardroom. All their customers, employees and suppliers – and Australians as a whole – have a stake in whether the boards get this right. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Discussion | Link

Discussion | Link

Tiktok If you’ve spent much time on TikTok recently, you may have noticed a strange new type of AI brain rot taking over: fruit dramas. These AI-generated short dramas feature odd-looking anthropomorphic fruit characters engaging in a range of ethically problematic behaviours. Many storylines, for instance, are based around affairs, racist attitudes, and the sexual assault of women characters. At face value, the videos come across as so bizarre and grotesque they can be hard to take seriously. That is until you realise they’re amassing hundreds of millions of views. One account called ai.cinema021, which has launched a parody series called Fruit Love Island, has more than 3 million followers. This content is, at best, a water-guzzling affront to the art of animation and, at worst, actively helping to normalise racism and misogyny. So why does it have so many fans? Tapping into the brain’s reward system These videos exploit core features of human psychology. Combined with addictive platform features (such as infinite scroll), the result is an endless stream of content that keeps us engaged – even if the message is immoral, or simply ridiculous. Short-form video feeds such as TikTok and Instagram reels operate on similar principles to those used in gambling systems. The human brain is highly sensitive to novelty and unpredictability, both of which are linked to dopamine signalling in reward learning. When rewards are delivered unpredictably, behaviour becomes more persistent. This pattern, known as “variable reinforcement”, has long been shown to sustain repeated actions, even when rewards are inconsistent. AI slop videos offer rapid visual novelty and unexpected emotional turns. You don’t know whether the next one will be absurd, funny, tragic, or strangely compelling. The videos also compress big emotional experiences. A single clip may move from betrayal, to sadness, to revenge, to humour in seconds. This creates emotional volatility, which increases arousal and sustains attention. Research shows emotionally charged content, especially when it is negative or surprising, is more likely than neutral material to get our attention. The pull of things that feel ‘kinda wrong’ Many viewers describe a sense that these videos feel “off”. The characters are expressive, but often not fully coherent. The narratives resemble human drama, but lack internal logic. This relates to the idea of the uncanny valley, where near-human representations produce discomfort. Importantly, these videos rarely become disturbing enough to trigger avoidance. Instead they sit in a middle zone. They are strange enough to provoke curiosity, but not uncomfortable enough to make you stop watching. This creates cognitive tension. According to cognitive dissonance theory, people are motivated to resolve such inconsistencies. And the way to resolve tension in this case is to keep watching, in search of closure. The mind keeps asking: what is this and where is it going? We’re also more likely to ignore the unethical messaging because of the format. The characters are highly synthetic. This makes the scenarios feel fictional – even when they reflect real social behaviours. Research on moral disengagement shows people are more likely to relax ethical judgement when the harm appears abstract or indirect. Fruit videos with themes of betrayal, humiliation or assault can be consumed without the discomfort that would arise if real people were involved. Influence through many minor interactions Much like AI slop, social media algorithms don’t prioritise meaning or quality. They prioritise content that captures our attention. Recommendation systems are driven by metrics such as “watch time”, “completion rate” and “interaction”. High engagement leads to greater visibility, which encourages the production of more similar content, creating a feedback loop. From an AI governance perspective, these videos highlight an often overlooked risk. That is: generative systems don’t just produce content; they can gradually shape our behaviours – often without us realising. This aligns with broader concerns in AI ethics about behavioural influence and manipulative design working on a large scale. Reclaiming your time and attention Avoiding social media entirely is not realistic for many people. But small changes can reduce the pull of AI-generated brain rot. One approach is to introduce a pause before scrolling to the next video. Even a brief interruption will weaken the reward loop in your brain, and make it easier to put your phone down. When you notice yourself thinking “this feels pointless” or “this is strange”, that’s the best time to stop. In some cases a digital detox might be helpful. You can also retrain your algorithm. Quickly skip or select “not interested” on videos you don’t want to see – and replace passive scrolling with intentional viewing by seeking out specific content. Finally, create friction. This might involve disabling automatic playback, or limiting your access to a feed, by disabling the app notification, or removing the app from your home screen. AI fruit videos may seem trivial and absurd, but they reveal something important about the digital environment. As generative systems scale up, they will only get better at capturing and directing our attention. Understanding the psychology behind this is the first step to resisting it. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

AI models depend on vectors to understand text, images, or data directly. More specifically, they rely on high-dimensional vectors that encode semantic meaning. It allows the system to capture and […] The post Google’s TurboQuant Marks a Fundamental Shift in How AI Systems Scale appeared first on BigDATAwire.

The small-scale delivery robots will be in action around campus.

Discussion | Link

While we've seen remarkable progress in AI for coding and mathematics, creating agents that can navigate the messy, open-ended nature of real research (where things break for no obvious reason) has proven far more challenging.

The round solidifies the ChatGPT maker's position as one of the world's most valuable private companies.

The move marks another investment by a tech giant in sovereign AI infrastructure.

Discussion | Link

After ChatGPT’s breakthrough, the race to define the next frontier of generative AI accelerated. One of the most talked-about innovations was OpenAI’s Sora, a text-to-video AI model that promised to transform digital content creation.

OpenAI ships GPT-5.4 mini and nano, faster and more capable but up to 4x pricier, DLSS 5 looks like a real-time generative AI filter for video games | The Verge, and more!