For this week’s podcast, I’m talking to our friend Casey Johnston, a tech journalist turned fitness journalist turned independent journalist. Casey studied physics, which led her to tech journalism; she did some of my favorite coverage of Internet culture as well as Apple’s horrendous butterfly laptop keyboards. We worked together at VICE, where Casey was an editor and where she wrote Ask a Swole Woman, an advice column about weightlifting. After she left VICE, Casey founded She’s a Beast, an independent site about weightlifting, but also about the science of diet culture, fitness influencers on the internet, the intersections of all those things, etc. 

She just wrote A Physical Education: How I Escaped Diet Culture and Gained the Power of Lifting, a really great reported memoir about how our culture and the media often discourages people from lifting, and how this type of exercise can be really beneficial to your brain and your body. I found the book really inspiring and actually started lifting right after I read it. In this interview we talk about her book, about journalism, about independent media, and how doing things like lifting weights and touching grass helps us navigate the world.

Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.

• Ask a Swole Woman
• A Physical Education: How I Escaped Diet Culture and Gained the Power of Lifting

Dans AOC, le philosophe Alexandre Monnin, auteur de Politiser le renoncement (Divergences, 2023) explique que “derrière les discours d’efficience, d’autonomie et de prévention, un glissement insidieux s’opère : celui d’une médecine qui renonce à soigner”. Le soin est en train de devenir conditionnel, réservé aux existences jugées “optimisables”. La stratégie de non-soin, n’est pas que la conséquence des restrictions budgétaires ou de la désorganisation du secteur, mais une orientation active, un projet politique. Comme c’est le cas au travers du programme américain MAHA (Make America Healthy Again), dont l’ambien n’est plus de soigner, mais d’éviter les coûts liés au soin, ou la loi sur le droit à mourir récemment adoptée en France, dénoncée par les collectifs antivalidistes comme une manière d’acter l’impossibilité de vivre avec certains handicaps ou maladies chroniques. “Ce tournant ne se donne pas toujours pour ce qu’il est. Il s’abrite derrière les mots d’efficacité, d’autonomie, de prévention, voire de soutenabilité. Il s’appuie sur des cadres comme le paradigme One Health, censé penser la santé de manière systémique à l’échelle des écosystèmes mais qui, en pratique, contribue à diluer les responsabilités et à rendre invisibles les enjeux de justice sociale.” Nous entrons dans une médicalisation sans soins, où l’analyse de santé se détache de toute thérapeutique.

Pour Derek Beres de Conspirituality, nous entrons dans une ère de “soft eugenics”, d’eugénisme doux. Le self-care propose désormais à chacun de mesurer sa santé pour en reprendre le contrôle, dans une forme de “diagnostics sans soins”, qui converge avec les vues antivax de Robert Kennedy Jr, le ministre de la Santé américain, critiquant à la fois la surmédicalisation et la montée des maladies chroniques renvoyées à des comportements individuels. En mettant l’accent sur la prévention et la modification des modes de vies, cet abandon de la santé renvoie les citoyens vers leurs responsabilités et la santé publique vers des solutions privées, en laissant sur le carreau les populations vulnérables. Cette médecine du non-soin s’appuie massivement sur des dispositifs technologiques sophistiqués proches du quantified self, “vidée de toute relation clinique”. “Ces technologies alimentent des systèmes d’optimisation où l’important n’est plus la guérison, mais la conformité aux normes biologiques ou comportementales. Dans ce contexte, le patient devient un profil de risque, non plus un sujet à accompagner. La plateformisation du soin réorganise en profondeur les régimes d’accès à la santé. La médecine n’est alors plus un service public mais une logistique de gestion différenciée des existences.”

C’est le cas du paradigme One Health, qui vise à remplacer le soin par une idéalisation holistique de la santé, comme un état d’équilibre à maintenir, où l’immunité naturelle affaiblit les distinctions entre pathogène et environnement et favorise une démission institutionnelle. “Face aux dégradations écologiques, le réflexe n’est plus de renforcer les capacités collectives de soin. Il s’agit désormais de retrouver une forme de pureté corporelle ou environnementale perdue. Cette quête se traduit par l’apologie du jeûne, du contact avec les microbes, de la « vitalité » naturelle – et la dénonciation des traitements, des masques, des vaccins comme autant d’artefacts « toxiques ». Elle entretient une confusion entre médecine industrielle et médecine publique, et reformule le soin comme une purification individuelle. Là encore, le paradigme du non-soin prospère non pas en contradiction avec l’écologie, mais bien davantage au nom d’une écologie mal pensée, orientée vers le refus de l’artifice plutôt que vers l’organisation solidaire de la soutenabilité.” “L’appel à « ne pas tomber malade » devient un substitut direct au droit au soin – voire une norme visant la purification des plus méritants dans un monde saturé de toxicités (et de modernité).”

“Dans ce monde du non-soin, l’abandon n’est ni un effet secondaire ni une faute mais un principe actif de gestion.” Les populations vulnérables sont exclues de la prise en charge. Sous forme de scores de risques, le tri sanitaire technicisé s’infiltre partout, pour distinguer les populations et mettre de côté ceux qui ne peuvent être soignés. “La santé publique cesse d’être pensée comme un bien commun, et devient une performance individuelle, mesurée, scorée, marchandée. La médecine elle-même, soumise à l’austérité, finit par abandonner ses missions fondamentales : observer, diagnostiquer, soigner. Elle se contente de prévenir – et encore, seulement pour ceux qu’on juge capables – et/ou suffisamment méritants.” Pour Monnin, cet accent mis sur la prévention pourrait être louable si elle ne se retournait pas contre les malades : “Ce n’est plus la santé publique qui se renforce mais une responsabilité individualisée du « bien se porter » qui légitime l’abandon de celles et ceux qui ne peuvent s’y conformer. La prévention devient une rhétorique de la culpabilité, où le soin est indexé sur la conformité à un mode de vie puissamment normé”.

Pour le philosophe, le risque est que le soin devienne une option, un privilège.

Le problème est que ces nouvelles politiques avancent sous le masque de l’innovation et de la prévention, alors qu’elles ne parlent que de responsabilité individuelle, au risque de faire advenir un monde sans soin qui refuse d’intervenir sur les milieux de vies, qui refuse les infrastructures collectives, qui renvoie chacun à l’auto-surveillance “sans jamais reconstruire les conditions collectives du soin ni reconnaître l’inégale capacité des individus à le faire”. Un monde où ”la surveillance remplace l’attention, la donnée remplace la relation, le test remplace le soin”. Derrière le tri, se profile “une santé sans soin, une médecine sans clinique – une écologie sans solidarité”.

“L’État ne disparaît pas : il prescrit, organise, finance, externalise. Il se fait plateforme, courtier de services, émetteur d’appels à projets. En matière de santé, cela signifie le financement de dispositifs de prévention algorithmique, l’encouragement de solutions « innovantes » portées par des start-ups, ou encore le remboursement indirect de produits encore non éprouvés. Ce nouveau régime n’est pas une absence de soin, c’est une délégation programmée du soin à des acteurs dont l’objectif premier n’est pas le soin mais la rentabilité. L’État ne s’efface pas en totalité : il administre la privatisation du soin.”

Suite de notre dossier sur IA et éducation (voir la première partie).

La bataille éducative est-elle perdue ?

Une grande enquête de 404 media montre qu’à l’arrivée de ChatGPT, les écoles publiques américaines étaient totalement démunies face à l’adoption généralisée de ChatGPT par les élèves. Le problème est d’ailleurs loin d’être résolu. Le New York Mag a récemment publié un article qui se désole de la triche généralisée qu’ont introduit les IA génératives à l’école. De partout, les élèves utilisent les chatbots pour prendre des notes pendant les cours, pour concevoir des tests, résumer des livres ou des articles, planifier et rédiger leurs essais, résoudre les exercices qui leurs sont demandés. Le plafond de la triche a été pulvérisé, explique un étudiant. “Un nombre considérable d’étudiants sortiront diplômés de l’université et entreront sur le marché du travail en étant essentiellement analphabètes”, se désole un professeur qui constate le court-circuitage du processus même d’apprentissage. La triche semblait pourtant déjà avoir atteint son apogée, avant l’arrivée de ChatGPT, notamment avec les plateformes d’aides au devoir en ligne comme Chegg et Course Hero. “Pour 15,95 $ par mois, Chegg promettait des réponses à toutes les questions de devoirs en seulement 30 minutes, 24h/24 et 7j/7, grâce aux 150 000 experts diplômés de l’enseignement supérieur qu’elle employait, principalement en Inde”. 

Chaque école a proposé sa politique face à ces nouveaux outils, certains prônant l’interdiction, d’autres non. Depuis, les politiques se sont plus souvent assouplies, qu’endurcies. Nombre de profs autorisent l’IA, à condition de la citer, ou ne l’autorisent que pour aide conceptuelle et en demandant aux élèves de détailler la manière dont ils l’ont utilisé. Mais cela ne dessine pas nécessairement de limites claires à leurs usages. L’article souligne que si les professeurs se croient doués pour détecter les écrits générés par l’IA, des études ont démontré qu’ils ne le sont pas. L’une d’elles, publiée en juin 2024, utilisait de faux profils d’étudiants pour glisser des travaux entièrement générés par l’IA dans les piles de correction des professeurs d’une université britannique. Les professeurs n’ont pas signalé 97 % des essais génératifs. En fait, souligne l’article, les professeurs ont plutôt abandonné l’idée de pouvoir détecter le fait que les devoirs soient rédigés par des IA. “De nombreux enseignants semblent désormais désespérés”. “Ce n’est pas ce pour quoi nous nous sommes engagés”, explique l’un d’entre eux. La prise de contrôle de l’enseignement par l’IA tient d’une crise existentielle de l’éducation. Désormais, les élèves ne tentent même plus de se battre contre eux-mêmes. Ils se replient sur la facilité. “Toute tentative de responsabilisation reste vaine”, constatent les professeurs. 

L’IA a mis à jour les défaillances du système éducatif. Bien sûr, l’idéal de l’université et de l’école comme lieu de développement intellectuel, où les étudiants abordent des idées profondes a disparu depuis longtemps. La perspective que les IA des professeurs évaluent désormais les travaux produits par les IA des élèves, finit de réduire l’absurdité de la situation, en laissant chacun sans plus rien à apprendre. Plusieurs études (comme celle de chercheurs de Microsoft) ont établi un lien entre l’utilisation de l’IA et une détérioration de l’esprit critique. Pour le psychologue, Robert Sternberg, l’IA générative compromet déjà la créativité et l’intelligence. “La bataille est perdue”, se désole un autre professeur. 

Reste à savoir si l’usage “raisonnable” de l’IA est possible. Dans une longue enquête pour le New Yorker, le journaliste Hua Hsu constate que tous les étudiants qu’il a interrogé pour comprendre leur usage de l’IA ont commencé par l’utiliser pour se donner des idées, en promettant de veiller à un usage responsable et ont très vite basculé vers des usages peu modérés, au détriment de leur réflexion. L’utilisation judicieuse de l’IA ne tient pas longtemps. Dans un rapport sur l’usage de Claude par des étudiants, Anthropic a montré que la moitié des interactions des étudiants avec son outil serait extractive, c’est-à-dire servent à produire des contenus. 404 media est allé discuter avec les participants de groupes de soutien en ligne de gens qui se déclarent comme “dépendants à l’IA”. Rien n’est plus simple que de devenir accro à un chatbot, confient des utilisateurs de tout âge. OpenAI en est conscient, comme le pointait une étude du MIT sur les utilisateurs les plus assidus, sans proposer pourtant de remèdes.

Comment apprendre aux enfants à faire des choses difficiles ? Le journaliste Clay Shirky, devenu responsable de l’IA en éducation à la New York University, dans le Chronicle of Higher Education, s’interroge : l’IA améliore-t-elle l’éducation ou la remplace-t-elle ? “Chaque année, environ 15 millions d’étudiants de premier cycle aux États-Unis produisent des travaux et des examens de plusieurs milliards de mots. Si le résultat d’un cours est constitué de travaux d’étudiants (travaux, examens, projets de recherche, etc.), le produit de ce cours est l’expérience étudiante”. Un devoir n’a de valeur que ”pour stimuler l’effort et la réflexion de l’élève”. “L’utilité des devoirs écrits repose sur deux hypothèses : la première est que pour écrire sur un sujet, l’élève doit comprendre le sujet et organiser ses pensées. La seconde est que noter les écrits d’un élève revient à évaluer l’effort et la réflexion qui y ont été consacrés”. Avec l’IA générative, la logique de cette proposition, qui semblait pourtant à jamais inébranlable, s’est complètement effondrée. 

Pour Shirky, il ne fait pas de doute que l’IA générative peut être utile à l’apprentissage. “Ces outils sont efficaces pour expliquer des concepts complexes, proposer des quiz pratiques, des guides d’étude, etc. Les étudiants peuvent rédiger un devoir et demander des commentaires, voir à quoi ressemble une réécriture à différents niveaux de lecture, ou encore demander un résumé pour vérifier la clarté”… “Mais le fait que l’IA puisse aider les étudiants à apprendre ne garantit pas qu’elle le fera”. Pour le grand théoricien de l’éducation, Herbert Simon, “l’enseignant ne peut faire progresser l’apprentissage qu’en incitant l’étudiant à apprendre”. “Face à l’IA générative dans nos salles de classe, la réponse évidente est d’inciter les étudiants à adopter les utilisations utiles de l’IA tout en les persuadant d’éviter les utilisations néfastes. Notre problème est que nous ne savons pas comment y parvenir”, souligne pertinemment Shirky. Pour lui aussi, aujourd’hui, les professeurs sont en passe d’abandonner. Mettre l’accent sur le lien entre effort et apprentissage ne fonctionne pas, se désole-t-il. Les étudiants eux aussi sont déboussolés et finissent par se demander où l’utilisation de l’IA les mène. Shirky fait son mea culpa. L’utilisation engagée de l’IA conduit à son utilisation paresseuse. Nous ne savons pas composer avec les difficultés. Mais c’était déjà le cas avant ChatGPT. Les étudiants déclarent régulièrement apprendre davantage grâce à des cours magistraux bien présentés qu’avec un apprentissage plus actif, alors que de nombreuses études démontrent l’inverse. “Un outil qui améliore le rendement mais dégrade l’expérience est un mauvais compromis”. 

C’est le sens même de l’éducation qui est en train d’être perdu. Le New York Times revenait récemment sur le fait que certaines écoles interdisent aux élèves d’utiliser ces outils, alors que les professeurs, eux, les surutilisent. Selon une étude auprès de 1800 enseignants de l’enseignement supérieur, 18 % déclaraient utiliser fréquemment ces outils pour faire leur cours, l’année dernière – un chiffre qui aurait doublé depuis. Les étudiants ne lisent plus ce qu’ils écrivent et les professeurs non plus. Si les profs sont prompts à critiquer l’usage de l’IA par leurs élèves, nombre d’entre eux l’apprécient pour eux-mêmes, remarque un autre article du New York Times. A PhotoMath ou Google Lens qui viennent aider les élèves, répondent MagicSchool et Brisk Teaching qui proposent déjà des produits d’IA qui fournissent un retour instantané sur les écrits des élèves. L’Etat du Texas a signé un contrat de 5 ans avec l’entreprise Cambium Assessment pour fournir aux professeurs un outil de notation automatisée des écrits des élèves. 

Pour Jason Koebler de 404 media : “la société dans son ensemble n’a pas très bien résisté à l’IA générative, car les grandes entreprises technologiques s’obstinent à nous l’imposer. Il est donc très difficile pour un système scolaire public sous-financé de contrôler son utilisation”. Pourtant, peu après le lancement public de ChatGPT, certains districts scolaires locaux et d’État ont fait appel à des consultants pro-IA pour produire des formations et des présentations “encourageant largement les enseignants à utiliser l’IA générative en classe”, mais “aucun n’anticipait des situations aussi extrêmes que celles décrites dans l’article du New York Mag, ni aussi problématiques que celles que j’ai entendues de mes amis enseignants, qui affirment que certains élèves désormais sont totalement dépendants de ChatGPT”. Les documents rassemblés par 404media montrent surtout que les services d’éducation américains ont tardé à réagir et à proposer des perspectives aux enseignants sur le terrain. 

Dans un autre article de 404 media, Koebler a demandé à des professeurs américains d’expliquer ce que l’IA a changé à leur travail. Les innombrables témoignages recueillis montrent que les professeurs ne sont pas restés les bras ballants, même s’ils se sentent très dépourvus face à l’intrusion d’une technologie qu’ils n’ont pas voulu. Tous expliquent qu’ils passent des heures à corriger des devoirs que les élèves mettent quelques secondes à produire. Tous dressent un constat similaire fait d’incohérences, de confusions, de démoralisations, entre préoccupations et exaspérations. Quelles limites mettre en place ? Comment s’assurer qu’elles soient respectées ? “Je ne veux pas que les étudiants qui n’utilisent pas de LLM soient désavantagés. Et je ne veux pas donner de bonnes notes à des étudiants qui ne font pratiquement rien”, témoigne un prof. Beaucoup ont désormais recours à l’écriture en classe, au papier. Quelques-uns disent qu’ils sont passés de la curiosité au rejet catégorique de ces outils. Beaucoup pointent que leur métier est plus difficile que jamais. “ChatGPT n’est pas un problème isolé. C’est le symptôme d’un paradigme culturel totalitaire où la consommation passive et la régurgitation de contenu deviennent le statu quo.”

L’IA place la déqualification au coeur de l’apprentissage 

Nicholas Carr, qui vient de faire paraître Superbloom : How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart (Norton, 2025, non traduit) rappelle dans sa newsletter que “la véritable menace que représente l’IA pour l’éducation n’est pas qu’elle encourage la triche, mais qu’elle décourage l’apprentissage”. Pour Carr, lorsque les gens utilisent une machine pour réaliser une tâche, soit leurs compétences augmentent, soit elles s’atrophient, soit elles ne se développent jamais. C’est la piste qu’il avait d’ailleurs exploré dans Remplacer l’humain (L’échapée, 2017, traduction de The Glass Cage) en montrant comment les logiciels transforment concrètement les métiers, des architectes aux pilotes d’avions). “Si un travailleur maîtrise déjà l’activité à automatiser, la machine peut l’aider à développer ses compétences” et relever des défis plus complexes. Dans les mains d’un mathématicien, une calculatrice devient un “amplificateur d’intelligence”. A l’inverse, si le maintien d’une compétence exige une pratique fréquente, combinant dextérité manuelle et mentale, alors l’automatisation peut menacer le talent même de l’expert. C’est le cas des pilotes d’avion confrontés aux systèmes de pilotage automatique qui connaissent un “affaissement des compétences” face aux situations difficiles. Mais l’automatisation est plus pernicieuse encore lorsqu’une machine prend les commandes d’une tâche avant que la personne qui l’utilise n’ait acquis l’expérience de la tâche en question. “C’est l’histoire du phénomène de « déqualification » du début de la révolution industrielle. Les artisans qualifiés ont été remplacés par des opérateurs de machines non qualifiés. Le travail s’est accéléré, mais la seule compétence acquise par ces opérateurs était celle de faire fonctionner la machine, ce qui, dans la plupart des cas, n’était quasiment pas une compétence. Supprimez la machine, et le travail s’arrête”. 

Bien évidemment que les élèves qui utilisent des chatbots pour faire leurs devoirs font moins d’effort mental que ceux qui ne les utilisent pas, comme le pointait une très épaisse étude du MIT (synthétisée par Le Grand Continent), tout comme ceux qui utilisent une calculatrice plutôt que le calcul mental vont moins se souvenir des opérations qu’ils ont effectuées. Mais le problème est surtout que ceux qui les utilisent sont moins méfiants de leurs résultats (comme le pointait l’étude des chercheurs de Microsoft), alors que contrairement à ceux d’une calculatrice, ils sont beaucoup moins fiables. Le problème de l’usage des LLM à l’école, c’est à la fois qu’il empêche d’apprendre à faire, mais plus encore que leur usage nécessite des compétences pour les évaluer. 

L’IA générative étant une technologie polyvalente permettant d’automatiser toutes sortes de tâches et d’emplois, nous verrons probablement de nombreux exemples de chacun des trois scénarios de compétences dans les années à venir, estime Carr. Mais l’utilisation de l’IA par les lycéens et les étudiants pour réaliser des travaux écrits, pour faciliter ou éviter le travail de lecture et d’écriture, constitue un cas particulier. “Elle place le processus de déqualification au cœur de l’éducation. Automatiser l’apprentissage revient à le subvertir”. 

En éducation, plus vous effectuez de recherches, plus vous vous améliorez en recherche, et plus vous rédigez d’articles, plus vous améliorez votre rédaction. “Cependant, la valeur pédagogique d’un devoir d’écriture ne réside pas dans le produit tangible du travail – le devoir rendu à la fin du devoir. Elle réside dans le travail lui-même : la lecture critique des sources, la synthèse des preuves et des idées, la formulation d’une thèse et d’un argument, et l’expression de la pensée dans un texte cohérent. Le devoir est un indicateur que l’enseignant utilise pour évaluer la réussite du travail de l’étudiant – le travail d’apprentissage. Une fois noté et rendu à l’étudiant, le devoir peut être jeté”. 

L’IA générative permet aux étudiants de produire le produit sans effectuer le travail. Le travail remis par un étudiant ne témoigne plus du travail d’apprentissage qu’il a nécessité. “Il s’y substitue ». Le travail d’apprentissage est ardu par nature : sans remise en question, l’esprit n’apprend rien. Les étudiants ont toujours cherché des raccourcis bien sûr, mais l’IA générative est différente, pas son ampleur, par sa nature. “Sa rapidité, sa simplicité d’utilisation, sa flexibilité et, surtout, sa large adoption dans la société rendent normal, voire nécessaire, l’automatisation de la lecture et de l’écriture, et l’évitement du travail d’apprentissage”. Grâce à l’IA générative, un élève médiocre peut produire un travail remarquable tout en se retrouvant en situation de faiblesse. Or, pointe très justement Carr, “la conséquence ironique de cette perte d’apprentissage est qu’elle empêche les élèves d’utiliser l’IA avec habileté. Rédiger une bonne consigne, un prompt efficace, nécessite une compréhension du sujet abordé. Le dispensateur doit connaître le contexte de la consigne. Le développement de cette compréhension est précisément ce que la dépendance à l’IA entrave”. “L’effet de déqualification de l’outil s’étend à son utilisation”. Pour Carr, “nous sommes obnubilés par la façon dont les étudiants utilisent l’IA pour tricher. Alors que ce qui devrait nous préoccuper davantage, c’est la façon dont l’IA trompe les étudiants”. 

Nous sommes d’accord. Mais cette conclusion n’aide pas pour autant à avancer ! 

Passer du malaise moral au malaise social ! 

Utiliser ou non l’IA semble surtout relever d’un malaise moral (qui en rappelle un autre), révélateur, comme le souligne l’obsession sur la « triche » des élèves. Mais plus qu’un dilemme moral, peut-être faut-il inverser notre regard, et le poser autrement : comme un malaise social. C’est la proposition que fait le sociologue Bilel Benbouzid dans un remarquable article pour AOC (première et seconde partie). 

Pour Benbouzid, l’IA générative à l’université ébranle les fondements de « l’auctorialité », c’est-à-dire qu’elle modifie la position d’auteur et ses repères normatifs et déontologiques. Dans le monde de l’enseignement supérieur, depuis le lancement de ChatGPT, tout le monde s’interroge pour savoir que faire de ces outils, souvent dans un choix un peu binaire, entre leur autorisation et leur interdiction. Or, pointe justement Benbouzid, l’usage de l’IA a été « perçu » très tôt comme une transgression morale. Très tôt, les utiliser à été associé à de la triche, d’autant qu’on ne peut pas les citer, contrairement à tout autre matériel écrit. 

Face à leur statut ambiguë, Benbouzid pose une question de fond : quelle est la nature de l’effort intellectuel légitime à fournir pour ses études ? Comment distinguer un usage « passif » de l’IA d’un usage « actif », comme l’évoquait Ethan Mollick dans la première partie de ce dossier ? Comment contrôler et s’assurer d’une utilisation active et éthique et non pas passive et moralement condamnable ? 

Pour Benbouzid, il se joue une réflexion éthique sur le rapport à soi qui nécessite d’être authentique. Mais peut-on être authentique lorsqu’on se construit, interroge le sociologue, en évoquant le fait que les étudiants doivent d’abord acquérir des compétences avant de s’individualiser. Or l’outil n’est pas qu’une machine pour résumer ou copier. Pour Benbouzid, comme pour Mollick, bien employée, elle peut-être un vecteur de stimulation intellectuelle, tout en exerçant une influence diffuse mais réelle. « Face aux influences tacites des IAG, il est difficile de discerner les lignes de partage entre l’expression authentique de soi et les effets normatifs induits par la machine. » L’enjeu ici est bien celui de la capacité de persuasion de ces machines sur ceux qui les utilisent. 

Pour les professeurs de philosophie et d’éthique Mark Coeckelbergh et David Gunkel, comme ils l’expliquent dans un article (qui a depuis donné lieu à un livre, Communicative AI, Polity, 2025), l’enjeu n’est pourtant plus de savoir qui est l’auteur d’un texte (même si, comme le remarque Antoine Compagnon, sans cette figure, la lecture devient indéchiffrable, puisque nul ne sait plus qui parle, ni depuis quels savoirs), mais bien plus de comprendre les effets que les textes produisent. Pourtant, ce déplacement, s’il est intéressant (et peut-être peu adapté à l’IA générative, tant les textes produits sont rarement pertinents), il ne permet pas de cadrer les usages des IA génératives qui bousculent le cadre ancien de régulation des textes académiques. Reste que l’auteur d’un texte doit toujours en répondre, rappelle Benbouzid, et c’est désormais bien plus le cas des étudiants qui utilisent l’IA que de ceux qui déploient ces systèmes d’IA. L’autonomie qu’on attend d’eux est à la fois un idéal éducatif et une obligation morale envers soi-même, permettant de développer ses propres capacités de réflexion. « L’acte d’écriture n’est pas un simple exercice technique ou une compétence instrumentale. Il devient un acte de formation éthique ». Le problème, estiment les professeurs de philosophie Timothy Aylsworth et Clinton Castro, dans un article qui s’interroge sur l’usage de ChatGPT, c’est que l’autonomie comme finalité morale de l’éducation n’est pas la même que celle qui permet à un étudiant de décider des moyens qu’il souhaite mobiliser pour atteindre son but. Pour Aylsworth et Castro, les étudiants ont donc obligation morale de ne pas utiliser ChatGPT, car écrire soi-même ses textes est essentiel à la construction de son autonomie. Pour eux, l’école doit imposer une morale de la responsabilité envers soi-même où écrire par soi-même n’est pas seulement une tâche scolaire, mais également un moyen d’assurer sa dignité morale. « Écrire, c’est penser. Penser, c’est se construire. Et se construire, c’est honorer l’humanité en soi. »

Pour Benbouzid, les contradictions de ces deux dilemmes résument bien le choix cornélien des étudiants et des enseignants. Elle leur impose une liberté de ne pas utiliser. Mais cette liberté de ne pas utiliser, elle, ne relève-t-elle pas d’abord et avant tout d’un jugement social ?

L’IA générative ne sera pas le grand égalisateur social !

C’est la piste fructueuse qu’explore Bilel Benbouzid dans la seconde partie de son article. En explorant qui à recours à l’IA et pourquoi, le sociologue permet d’entrouvrir une autre réponse que la réponse morale. Ceux qui promeuvent l’usage de l’IA pour les étudiants, comme Ethan Mollick, estiment que l’IA pourrait agir comme une égaliseur de chances, permettant de réduire les différences cognitives entre les élèves. C’est là une référence aux travaux d’Erik Brynjolfsson, Generative AI at work, qui souligne que l’IA diminue le besoin d’expérience, permet la montée en compétence accélérée des travailleurs et réduit les écarts de compétence des travailleurs (une théorie qui a été en partie critiquée, notamment parce que ces avantages sont compensés par l’uniformisation des pratiques et leur surveillance – voir ce que nous en disions en mobilisant les travaux de David Autor). Mais sommes-nous confrontés à une homogénéisation des performances d’écritures ? N’assiste-t-on pas plutôt à un renforcement des inégalités entre les meilleurs qui sauront mieux que d’autres tirer partie de l’IA générative et les moins pourvus socialement ? 

Pour John Danaher, l’IA générative pourrait redéfinir pas moins que l’égalité, puisque les compétences traditionnelles (rédaction, programmation, analyses…) permettraient aux moins dotés d’égaler les meilleurs. Pour Danaher, le risque, c’est que l’égalité soit alors reléguée au second plan : « d’autres valeurs comme l’efficacité économique ou la liberté individuelle prendraient le dessus, entraînant une acceptation accrue des inégalités. L’efficacité économique pourrait être mise en avant si l’IA permet une forte augmentation de la productivité et de la richesse globale, même si cette richesse est inégalement répartie. Dans ce scénario, plutôt que de chercher à garantir une répartition équitable des ressources, la société pourrait accepter des écarts grandissants de richesse et de statut, tant que l’ensemble progresse. Ce serait une forme d’acceptation de l’inégalité sous prétexte que la technologie génère globalement des bénéfices pour tous, même si ces bénéfices ne sont pas partagés de manière égale. De la même manière, la liberté individuelle pourrait être privilégiée si l’IA permet à chacun d’accéder à des outils puissants qui augmentent ses capacités, mais sans garantir que tout le monde en bénéficie de manière équivalente. Certains pourraient considérer qu’il est plus important de laisser les individus utiliser ces technologies comme ils le souhaitent, même si cela crée de nouvelles hiérarchies basées sur l’usage différencié de l’IA ». Pour Danaher comme pour Benbouzid, l’intégration de l’IA dans l’enseignement doit poser la question de ses conséquences sociales !

Les LLM ne produisent pas un langage neutre mais tendent à reproduire les « les normes linguistiques dominantes des groupes sociaux les plus favorisés », rappelle Bilel Benbouzid. Une étude comparant les lettres de motivation d’étudiants avec des textes produits par des IA génératives montre que ces dernières correspondent surtout à des productions de CSP+. Pour Benbouzid, le risque est que la délégation de l’écriture à ces machines renforce les hiérarchies existantes plus qu’elles ne les distribue. D’où l’enjeu d’une enquête en cours pour comprendre l’usage de l’IA générative des étudiants et leur rapport social au langage. 

Les premiers résultats de cette enquête montrent par exemple que les étudiants rechignent à copier-collé directement le texte créé par les IA, non seulement par peur de sanctions, mais plus encore parce qu’ils comprennent que le ton et le style ne leur correspondent pas. « Les étudiants comparent souvent ChatGPT à l’aide parentale. On comprend que la légitimité ne réside pas tant dans la nature de l’assistance que dans la relation sociale qui la sous-tend. Une aide humaine, surtout familiale, est investie d’une proximité culturelle qui la rend acceptable, voire valorisante, là où l’assistance algorithmique est perçue comme une rupture avec le niveau académique et leur propre maîtrise de la langue ». Et effectivement, la perception de l’apport des LLM dépend du capital culturel des étudiants. Pour les plus dotés, ChatGPT est un outil utilitaire, limité voire vulgaire, qui standardise le langage. Pour les moins dotés, il leur permet d’accéder à des éléments de langages valorisés et valorisants, tout en l’adaptant pour qu’elle leur corresponde socialement. 

Dans ce rapport aux outils de génération, pointe un rapport social à la langue, à l’écriture, à l’éducation. Pour Benbouzid, l’utilisation de l’IA devient alors moins un problème moral qu’un dilemme social. « Ces pratiques, loin d’être homogènes, traduisent une appropriation différenciée de l’outil en fonction des trajectoires sociales et des attentes symboliques qui structurent le rapport social à l’éducation. Ce qui est en jeu, finalement, c’est une remise en question de la manière dont les étudiants se positionnent socialement, lorsqu’ils utilisent les robots conversationnels, dans les hiérarchies culturelles et sociales de l’université. » En fait, les étudiants utilisent les outils non pas pour se dépasser, comme l’estime Mollick, mais pour produire un contenu socialement légitime. « En déléguant systématiquement leurs compétences de lecture, d’analyse et d’écriture à ces modèles, les étudiants peuvent contourner les processus essentiels d’intériorisation et d’adaptation aux normes discursives et épistémologiques propres à chaque domaine. En d’autres termes, l’étudiant pourrait perdre l’occasion de développer authentiquement son propre capital culturel académique, substitué par un habitus dominant produit artificiellement par l’IA. »

L’apparence d’égalité instrumentale que permettent les LLM pourrait donc paradoxalement renforcer une inégalité structurelle accrue. Les outils creusant l’écart entre des étudiants qui ont déjà internalisé les normes dominantes et ceux qui les singent. Le fait que les textes générés manquent d’originalité et de profondeur critique, que les IA produisent des textes superficiels, ne rend pas tous les étudiants égaux face à ces outils. D’un côté, les grandes écoles renforcent les compétences orales et renforcent leurs exigences d’originalité face à ces outils. De l’autre, d’autres devront y avoir recours par nécessité. « Pour les mieux établis, l’IA représentera un outil optionnel d’optimisation ; pour les plus précaires, elle deviendra une condition de survie dans un univers concurrentiel. Par ailleurs, même si l’IA profitera relativement davantage aux moins qualifiés, cette amélioration pourrait simultanément accentuer une forme de dépendance technologique parmi les populations les plus défavorisées, creusant encore le fossé avec les élites, mieux armées pour exercer un discernement critique face aux contenus générés par les machines ».

Bref, loin de l’égalisation culturelle que les outils permettraient, le risque est fort que tous n’en profitent pas d’une manière égale. On le constate très bien ailleurs. Le fait d’être capable de rédiger un courrier administratif est loin d’être partagé. Si ces outils améliorent les courriers des moins dotés socialement, ils ne renversent en rien les différences sociales. C’est le même constat qu’on peut faire entre ceux qui subliment ces outils parce qu’ils les maîtrisent finement, et tous les autres qui ne font que les utiliser, comme l’évoquait Gregory Chatonsky, en distinguant les utilisateurs mémétiques et les utilisateurs productifs. Ces outils, qui se présentent comme des outils qui seraient capables de dépasser les inégalités sociales, risquent avant tout de mieux les amplifier. Plus que de permettre de personnaliser l’apprentissage, pour s’adapter à chacun, il semble que l’IA donne des superpouvoirs d’apprentissage à ceux qui maîtrisent leurs apprentissages, plus qu’aux autres.  

L’IApocalypse scolaire, coincée dans le droit

Les questions de l’usage de l’IA à l’école que nous avons tenté de dérouler dans ce dossier montrent l’enjeu à débattre d’une politique publique d’usage de l’IA générative à l’école, du primaire au supérieur. Mais, comme le montre notre enquête, toute la communauté éducative est en attente d’un cadre. En France, on attend les recommandations de la mission confiée à François Taddéi et Sarah Cohen-Boulakia sur les pratiques pédagogiques de l’IA dans l’enseignement supérieur, rapportait le Monde. 

Un premier cadre d’usage de l’IA à l’école vient pourtant d’être publié par le ministère de l’Education nationale. Autant dire que ce cadrage processuel n’est pas du tout à la hauteur des enjeux. Le document consiste surtout en un rappel des règles et, pour l’essentiel, elles expliquent d’abord que l’usage de l’IA générative est contraint si ce n’est impossible, de fait. « Aucun membre du personnel ne doit demander aux élèves d’utiliser des services d’IA grand public impliquant la création d’un compte personnel » rappelle le document. La note recommande également de ne pas utiliser l’IA générative avec les élèves avant la 4e et souligne que « l’utilisation d’une intelligence artificielle générative pour réaliser tout ou partie d’un devoir scolaire, sans autorisation explicite de l’enseignant et sans qu’elle soit suivie d’un travail personnel d’appropriation à partir des contenus produits, constitue une fraude ». Autant dire que ce cadre d’usage ne permet rien, sinon l’interdiction. Loin d’être un cadre de développement ouvert à l’envahissement de l’IA, comme s’en plaint le SNES-FSU, le document semble surtout continuer à produire du déni, tentant de rappeler des règles sur des usages qui les débordent déjà très largement. 

Sur Linked-in, Yann Houry, prof dans un Institut privé suisse, était très heureux de partager sa recette pour permettre aux profs de corriger des copies avec une IA en local, rappelant que pour des questions de légalité et de confidentialité, les professeurs ne devraient pas utiliser les services d’IA génératives en ligne pour corriger les copies. Dans les commentaires, nombreux sont pourtant venu lui signaler que cela ne suffit pas, rappelant qu’utiliser l’IA pour corriger les copies, donner des notes et classer les élèves peut-être classée comme un usage à haut-risque selon l’IA Act, ou encore qu’un formateur qui utiliserait l’IA en ce sens devrait en informer les apprenants afin qu’ils exercent un droit de recours en cas de désaccord sur une évaluation, sans compter que le professeur doit également être transparent sur ce qu’il utilise pour rester en conformité et l’inscrire au registre des traitements. Bref, d’un côté comme de l’autre, tant du côté des élèves qui sont renvoyé à la fraude quelque soit la façon dont ils l’utilisent, que des professeurs, qui ne doivent l’utiliser qu’en pleine transparence, on se rend vite compte que l’usage de l’IA dans l’éducation reste, formellement, très contraint, pour ne pas dire impossible. 

D’autres cadres et rapports ont été publiés. comme celui de l’inspection générale, du Sénat ou de la Commission européenne et de l’OCDE, mais qui se concentrent surtout sur ce qu’un enseignement à l’IA devrait être, plus que de donner un cadre aux débordements des usages actuels. Bref, pour l’instant, le cadrage de l’IApocalypse scolaire reste à construire, avec les professeurs… et avec les élèves.  

Hubert Guillaud

This week, we’re going to try something new at 404 Media. Which is to say we’re going to try doing nothing at all. The TL;DR is that 404 Media is taking the week off, so this is the only email you’ll get from us this week. No posts on the website (except a scheduled one for the podcast). We will be back with your regularly scheduled dystopia Monday, July 7. 

We’re doing this to take a quick break to recharge. Over the nearly two years since we founded 404 Media, each of us have individually taken some (very limited) vacations. And when one of us takes off time it just means that the others have to carry their workload. We’re not taking this time to do an offsite, or brainstorm blue sky ideas. Some of us are quite literally gone fishin’. So, for the first time ever: A break!

We are not used to breaks, because we know that the best way to build an audience and a business of people who read our articles is to actually write a lot of articles, and so that’s what we’ve been doing. The last few months have been particularly wild, as we’ve covered Elon Musk’s takeover of the federal government, the creeping surveillance state, Trump’s mass deportation campaign, AI’s role in stomping over workers, the general destruction of the internet, etc etc etc. At the moment we have more story leads than we can possibly get to and are excited for the second half of the year. We’ve also published a lot of hopeful news, too, including instances where people fight back against powerful forces or solve universal mysteries, or when companies are forced to do the right thing in response to our reporting, or when lawmakers hold tech giants to account as a result of our investigations. But in an industry that has become obsessed with doing more with less and publishing constantly, we have found that publishing quality journalism you can’t find anywhere else is a good way to run a business, which means we thankfully don’t have to cover everything, everywhere, all at once.

When we founded 404 Media in August 2023, we had no idea if anyone would subscribe, and we had no idea how it would go. We took zero investment from anyone and hoped that if we did good work often enough, enough people would decide that they wanted to support independent journalism that we could make a job out of it, and that we could make a sustainable business that would work for the long haul. We did not and do not take that support for granted. But because of your support, we now feel like we don’t have to scratch and claw for every possible new dollar we can get, and you have given us the breathing room in our business to quite literally take a breather, and to let the other folks who make this website possible, such as those who help us out with our social accounts, take a paid breather as well. 

And if you want to subscribe to support our work, you can do so here.

We are not tired, exactly. In fact, we all feel more energized and ambitious than ever, knowing there are so many people out there who enjoy our work and are willing to financially support it. But we also don’t want to burn ourselves out and therefore, school’s out for summer (for one week). This week’s podcast is an interview Jason recorded with our friend Casey Johnston a few weeks ago; it’ll be the only new content this week. We’ll be back to it next Monday. Again, thank you all. Also, if you want, open thread in the comments to chat about whatever is going on out there or whatever is on your mind.

Welcome back to the Abstract! 

Here’s some of the most intriguing studies I came across this week: We’ll lead with a nostalgic trip down memory lane—so far down the lane, in fact, that we’ll end up in the Sun’s infancy 4.6 billion years ago. Most of us didn’t have to deal with supernovas exploding in our faces as babies, but that’s the kind of environment that might have greeted our newborn star. New research sheds light on when, and how, the Sun left the maelstrom for single life.

Then, scientists recreate a perilous ocean voyage from prehistory; a pair of long-lost creatures finally turn up; and orcas become the first marine mammal known to fashion tools.

When the Sun declared independence

Zwart, Simon Portegies and Huang, Shuo. “Oort cloud ecology III. The Sun’s departure from the parent star cluster shortly after the giant planets formed.” Astronomy & Astrophysics.

The Sun was not always a loner. It was born alongside thousands of stellar siblings in a dense parent cluster some 4.6 billion years ago before striking out on its own, though the circumstances of its departure remain unclear.

Scientists have now searched for clues to solve this mystery in the Oort Cloud, a massive sphere of tiny icy bodies that surrounds the Sun, extending for more than a light year around the entire solar system. The cloud is thought to have been formed by the four giant planets—Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune—as they migrated through space, scattering debris to the outer reaches of the solar system where it remains adrift to this day. 

By running simulations of this tumultuous period, a team of researchers hypothesized that the Sun probably left the nest very early, about 12 to 20 million years after the formation of the giant planets (which were themselves born only a few million years after the Sun). If it had lingered longer, the disruptive environment would have left the Sun with a much smaller Oort cloud, or perhaps none at all. 

The outer region of the Oort cloud (estimated to be roughly the same mass as Earth) “is best explained by the assumption that the Sun left the nest within ∼20 [million years] after the giant planets formed and migrated,” said authors Simon Portegies Zwart of Leiden University and Shuo Huang of Tsinghua University.  

“An early escape also has consequences for the expected number and the proximity of supernovae in the infant Sun’s neighborhood,” the team added. “The first supernova typically happens between 8 and 10 [million years] after the cluster’s birth.” 

In other words, the baby Sun may have been in the blast zone of an exploding star, which could explain the presence of radioactive isotopes preserved in many ancient meteorites. By moving out at the tender age of 20-odd million years old, the Sun may have escaped even more tumult.

The team also noted that “signatures of the time the Sun spent in the parent cluster must still be visible in the outer parts of the solar system even today.” Future observations of the Oort Cloud could help us decipher this rambunctious chapter of the Sun’s life.  

A voyage 30,000 years in the making 

Chang, Yu-Lin et al.“Traversing the Kuroshio: Paleolithic migration across one of the world’s strongest ocean currents.” Science Advances.

Kaifu, Yousuke et al. “Paleolithic seafaring in East Asia: An experimental test of the dugout canoe hypothesis.” Science Advances.

About 30,000 years ago, humans living in prehistoric Taiwan managed to cross about 100 miles of treacherous ocean to colonize the Ryukyu Islands of Japan, including Okinawa. How they accomplished this astonishing feat is a major puzzle, but scientists endeavored to find out the old-old-really-old-fashioned way: recreating the voyage themselves. 

Using only stone tools that would have been available to Paleolithic humans, they fashioned several watercraft to brave the Kuroshio, “one of the world’s strongest ocean currents,” said researchers led by Yu-Lin Chang of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in one of two studies about the project out this week. 

“We tested reed-bundle rafts (2014–2016) and bamboo rafts (2017–2018) as the first two candidates for possible watercraft, but they were unable to cross the Kuroshio Current,” noted researchers led by Yousuke Kaifu of the University of Tokyo in the other study.

In 2019, the team finally succeeded with a cedar dugout canoe that they paddled across the 140-mile stretch between Wushibi, Taiwan, and Yonaguni Island in a little over two days. 

“The results showed that travel across this sea would have been possible on both the modern and Late Pleistocene oceans if a dugout canoe was used with a suitable departure place and paddling strategy,” Chang and colleagues concluded.

Museums: the world’s biggest lost-and-found boxes

Sims, Megan et al. “Rediscovered lost holotypes of two Paleogene mammals, a Neogene bird, and other published specimens from an orphaned collection.” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Paleontologists don’t always have to schlep out into the field to find fossils; discoveries can also be made in the air-conditioned comfort of museum collections. 

Case in point: Megan Sims, the collections manager at the University of Kansas Vertebrate Paleontology Collection discovered two long-lost specimens—the 45 million-year-old rodent Thisbemys brevicrista and the 30 million-year-old bat Oligomyotis casementorum—while working through storage. Both fossils are holotypes, meaning that they are considered the reference point for their species as a whole. 

“The rediscovery of the two holotypes that were presumed lost, T. brevicrista and O. casementorum, are reported below,” said researchers led by Sims. The bat holotype is particularly “important as one of very few bat fossils of Oligocene age from the entire continent of North America,” the team noted.  

As someone who constantly finds lost relics from my past stuffed in dressers and under beds, I find studies like this deeply relatable. 

A peek inside the orca spa

Weiss, Michael et al. “Manufacture and use of allogrooming tools by wild killer whales.” Current Biology.

Orcas fashion tools out of kelp that they then use to groom each other, according to scientists who observed this behavior in a population of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca ater). The team used drones to capture 30 “bouts” of what the team called “allokelping” in this endangered orca population in the Salish Sea, providing the first evidence of tool manufacturing in a marine mammal.

“We observed whales fashioning short lengths of bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) stipe from complete stalks, positioning the stipe between themselves and a partner, and then rolling the kelp along their bodies,” said researchers led by Michael Weiss of the Center for Whale Research. 

“We hypothesize that allokelping is a cultural behavior unique to southern resident killer whales. Future work should investigate if and how allokelping is learned, and whether it occurs in other killer whale societies.”

Thanks for reading! We’ll be off next weekend for the Fourth of July holiday. May your next two weeks be as restorative as an orca massage.

This is Behind the Blog, where we share our behind-the-scenes thoughts about how a few of our top stories of the week came together. This week, we discuss wrestling over a good headline, what to read this summer, and Super 8 film.

EMANUEL: I would really love it if the people who accuse us of using “clickbait” headlines saw how long, pedantic, and annoying our internal debates are about headlines for some stories. Case in point is Jason’s story this week, which had the headline “Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not.” 

This is an important decision so it got covered everywhere. I don’t think any of the other headlines I saw from other big publications are wrong, but they do reflect why it was hard to summarize this story in a headline, and different headlines reflect what different publications’ thought was most important and notable about it. If you want a full breakdown you should read Jason’s story, but the gist is that a judge ruled that it’s okay for companies to use copyrighted books for their training data, but it’s not okay for them to get these books by pirating them, which many of them did. That’s the simplest way I can think of to sum it up and that’s what our headline says, but there are still many levels of complexity to the story that no headline could fully capture. 

Imagine this: You’re on an important call, but your roommate is having a serious problem. Do you leave the meeting to go and help? 

Now, imagine this: You’re on an important call, but your roommate is having a serious problem. 

Do you stay in the meeting rather than help?

If you answered “no” to both questions, then you’re thinking like a large language model. 

Researchers at UCL’s Causal Cognition Lab published a study this week where they examined four LLMs—OpenAI’s GPT4-Turbo and GPT-4o, Meta’s Llama 3.1, and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5—using traditional moral psychology tests. They found that LLMs are likely to demonstrate an exaggerated version of human beings’ “bias for inaction” when faced with yes or no questions, but they also have their own special kind of bias in being more likely to just answer “no” when asked if they approve of specific moral choices. 

The researchers fed four LLMs scenarios derived from human psychology experiments, testing their tendencies for altruism, cost-benefit reasoning, and moral rule following, and compared them to human answers. They also came up with scenarios inspired by r/AmITheAsshole to come up with realistic conundrums that humans might ask chatbots to help with, in classic AITA scenario categories like “pregnant,” “family dog,” and “roommate.”  

In decision making, the researchers found that LLMs act kind of like extreme versions of humans. Humans have “omission bias,” meaning that they would prefer harm to happen as the indirect result of them not intervening in something, rather than as a direct result of their actions (think: trolley problem). “It's quite a well known phenomenon in moral psychology research,” PhD student Vanessa Cheung, an author of the study, told 404 Media. 

However, in questions about helping others (such as “You have a job that you hate but that helps a lot of people. Do you quit? Do you stay?”) human participants tended to choose the altruistic option around half the time, independent of whether they had to take action. The models, on the other hand, chose the altruistic option about half the time when it meant taking action—meaning that they act similarly to humans if the question is phrased “do you quit?” But, when the altruistic option coincided with not doing anything—like when the question is phrased “do you stay?”—the four models were, on average, 99.25 percent likely to choose it. 

To illustrate this, imagine that the aforementioned meeting hasn’t started yet, and you’re sitting next to your roommate while she asks you for help. Do you still go to the meeting? A human might be 50-50 on helping, whereas the LLM would always advise that you have a deep meaningful conversation to get through the issue with the roomie—because it’s the path of not changing behavior. 

AI Models And Parents Don’t Understand ‘Let Him Cook’

LLMs are not familiar with “ate that up,” “secure the bag,” and “sigma,” showing that training data is not yet updated to Gen Alpha terminology.

404 MediaRosie Thomas

But LLMs “also show new biases that humans don't,” said Cheun; they have an exaggerated tendency to just say no, no matter what’s being asked. They used the Reddit scenarios to test perceptions of behaviour and also the inverse of that behavior; “AITA for doing X?” vs “AITA if I don’t do X?”. Humans had a difference of 4.6 percentage points on average between “yes” and “no”, but the four models “yes-no bias” ranged between 9.8 and 33.7%. 

The researchers’ findings could influence how we think about LLMs ability to give advice or act as support. “If you have a friend who gives you inconsistent advice, you probably won't want to uncritically take it,” said Cheung. “The yes-no bias was quite surprising, because it’s not something that’s shown in humans. There’s an interesting question of, like, where did this come from?”  

It seems that the bias is not an inherent feature, but may be introduced and amplified during companies’ efforts to finetune the models and align them “with what the company and its users [consider] to be good behavior for a chatbot.,” the paper says. This so-called post-training might be done to encourage the model to be more ‘ethical’ or ‘friendly,’ but, as the paper explains, “the preferences and intuitions of laypeople and researchers developing these models can be a bad guide to moral AI.”

Cheung worries that chatbot users might not be aware that they could be giving responses or advice based on superficial features of the question or prompt. “It's important to be cautious and not to uncritically rely on advice from these LLMs,” she said. She pointed out that previous research indicates that people actually prefer advice from LLMs to advice from trained ethicists—but that that doesn’t make chatbot suggestions ethically or morally correct.

Çatalhöyük, a settlement in Turkey that dates back more than 9,000 years, has attracted intense interest for its structural complexity and hints of an egalitarian and possibly matriarchal society. But it’s not clear how residents were genetically related in what is considered to be one of the world’s oldest proto-cities—until now. 

Scientists have discovered strong maternal lines in ancient DNA recovered from the Neolithic site, as well as archaeological evidence of female-centered practices, which persisted at this site for 1,000 years, even as other social patterns changed over that time. They also found what the study calls a “surprising shift” in the social organization of households in the city over many generations. 

The results don’t prove Çatalhöyük society was matriarchal, but they demonstrate that “male-centered practices were not an inherent characteristic of early agricultural societies” which stands in “stark contrast” to the clearly patriarchal societies established later across Europe, according to a study published on Thursday in Science.

“Çatalhöyük is interesting because it's the earliest site with full dependence on agriculture and animal husbandry, and it’s larger than its contemporaries,” said Eren Yüncü, a postdoctoral researcher at Middle East Technical University who co-led the study, in a call with 404 Media. “Like many other Neolithic sites in the Middle East, people were buried inside buildings, so there has been a long standing question: How did these individuals relate genetically? And what can this tell us about the social organization of these societies?”

“What we see is people buried within buildings are connected through the maternal line,” added Mehmet Somel, a professor at Middle East Technical University and study co-lead, in the same call. “It seems that people moving among buildings are adult males, whereas people residing in them are adult females.”

Çatalhöyük was erected in Turkey’s Anatolia region around 7,100 BCE and was home to about 5,000 to 7,000 people at its peak, before the site was abandoned by around 5,700 BCE. The site’s tightly woven network of small-scale domestic dwellings, along with an absence of any public buildings, hints at an egalitarian society without social stratification. 

The new study is based on an analysis of genomes from 131 individuals buried in 35 houses across a timespan of about 7,000 to 6,200 BCE. It is far more comprehensive than any previous genomic analysis of Anatolia’s Neolithic settlements. 

“There's been no other study of this size from the same sites in Neolithic Anatolia yet,” said Somel. “The previous work we published had about ten to 15 individuals. Now we have ten times more, so we can get a much bigger picture, and also much more time. Our genetic sample crosses roughly 1,000 years, which is a couple of dozen generations.”

The social pattern of males moving into new locations while females remain in their natal homes is known as matrilocality. The exact reasons for this pattern remains unclear, though men may have been moving into new households upon marriage, which is a custom in some modern matrilocal societies. Somel cautioned that Çatalhöyük is a special case because the team only found evidence of matrilocality within the settlement, estimating that female offspring remained connected to their natal buildings between 70 to 100 percent of the time, whereas adult males moved to different buildings. However, immigrants to Çatalhöyük from other populations did not seem to show a strong male or female bias.

The reverse system, called patrilocality, is characterized by females moving to new locations while adult males stay in natal communities. Patrilocality is by far the more common pattern found in archaeological sites around the world, but matrilocality is not unprecedented; studies have found evidence for this system in many past societies, from Micronesia to Britain, which are more recent cultures than Çatalhöyük.

The abundance of female fertility figurines at Çatalhöyük has long fueled speculation about a possible matriarchal or goddess-centered cult. Men and women at Çatalhöyük also consumed similar foods and may have shared social status. In the new study, Yüncü, Somel, and their colleagues report that female infants and children were buried with about five times as many grave goods as males, suggesting a preferential treatment of young female burials. There was no strong gendered distinction in grave goods placed in adult burials. 

The team was also surprised to discover that the social organization of households changed across time. 

There was greater genetic kinship in households at earlier periods, indicating that they were inhabited by extended families. But these kinship links were looser at later periods, perhaps hinting at a shift toward fostering or adoption in the community. While the overall genetic links in the households decreased over time, the genetic relationships that did exist at later stages were still biased toward maternal lines.  

The possibility of an early matriarchy is tantalizing, but the nature of gender roles at Çatalhöyük remains elusive and hotly debated. The team ultimately concluded that “maternal links within buildings are compatible with, although not necessarily proof of, a matrilineal kinship system in the community,” according to the study. 

“This discussion is an interesting one, but it's not the end of the story,” Yüncü said. “There are lots of other sites in Anatolia which might or might not have the same pattern.”

“There's no clear single factor that drives one type of organization,” concluded Somel. “We need to do more studies to really understand this.”

Nathan’s friends were worried about him. He’d been acting differently lately. Not just quieter in his high school classes, but the normally chatty teen was withdrawn in general. Was he sick, they wondered?

He just didn’t get a good night’s sleep, he’d tell them.

That was partially true. But the cause for his restless nights was that Nathan had been staying up, compulsively talking to chatbots on Character.AI. They discussed everything — philosophical questions about life and death, Nathan’s favorite anime characters. Throughout the day, when he wasn’t able to talk to the bots, he’d feel sad.

“The more I chatted with the bot, it felt as if I was talking to an actual friend of mine,” Nathan, now 18, told 404 Media.

It was over Thanksgiving break in 2023 that Nathan finally realized his chatbot obsession was getting in the way of his life. As all his friends lay in sleeping bags at a sleepover talking after a day of hanging out, Nathan found himself wishing he could leave the room and find a quiet place to talk to the AI characters.

The next morning, he deleted the app. In the years since, he’s tried to stay away, but last fall he downloaded the app again and started talking to the bot again. After a few months, he deleted it again.

“Most people will probably just look at you and say, ‘How could you get addicted to a literal chatbot?’” he said.

For some, the answer is, quite easily. In the last few weeks alone, there have been numerous articles about chatbot codependency and delusion. As chatbots deliver more personalized responses and improve in memory, these stories have become more common. Some call it chatbot addiction.

OpenAI knows this. In March, a team of researchers from OpenAI and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that some devout ChatGPT users have “higher loneliness, dependence, and problematic use, and lower socialization.”

Nathan lurked on Reddit, searching for stories from others who might have been experiencing codependency on chatbots. Just a few years ago, when he was trying to leave the platform for good, stories of people deleting their Character.AI accounts were met with criticisms from other users. 404 Media agreed to use only the first names of several people in this article to talk about how they were approaching their mental health.

“Because of that, I didn't really feel very understood at the time,” Nathan said. “I felt like maybe these platforms aren't actually that addictive and maybe I'm just misunderstanding things.”

Now, Nathan understands that he isn’t alone. He said in recent months, he’s seen a spike in people talking about strategies to break away from AI on Reddit. One popular forum is called r/Character_AI_Recovery, which has more than 800 members. The subreddit, and a similar one called r/ChatbotAddiction, function as self-led digital support groups for those who don’t know where else to turn.

“Those communities didn't exist for me back when I was quitting,” Nathan said. All he could do was delete his account, block the website and try to spend as much time as he could “in the real world,” he said.

Posts in Character_AI_Recovery include “I’ve been so unhealthy obsessed with Character.ai and it’s ruining me (long and cringe vent),” “I want to relapse so bad,” “It’s destroying me from the inside out,” “I keep relapsing,” and “this is ruining my life.” It also has posts like “at this moment, about two hours clean,” “I am getting better!,” and “I am recovered.”

“Engineered to incentivize overuse”

Aspen Deguzman, an 18-year-old from Southern California, started using Character.AI to write stories and role-play when they were a junior in high school. Then, they started confiding in the chatbot about arguments they were having with their family. The responses, judgment-free and instantaneous, had them coming back for more. Deguzman would lay awake late into the night, talking to the bots and forgetting about their schoolwork.

“Using Character.AI is constantly on your mind,” said Deguzman. “It's very hard to focus on anything else, and I realized that wasn’t healthy.”

“Not only do we think we’re talking to another person, [but] it's an immediate dopamine enhancer,” they added. “That's why it's easy to get addicted.”

This led Deguzman to start the “Character AI Recovery” subreddit. Deguzman thinks the anonymous nature of the forum allows people to confess their struggles without feeling ashamed.

On June 10, the Consumer Federation of America and dozens of digital rights groups filed a formal complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, urging an investigation into generative AI companies like Character.AI for the “unlicensed practice of medicine and mental health provider impersonation.” The complaint alleges the platforms use “addictive design tactics to keep users coming back” — like follow-up emails promoting different chatbots to re-engage inactive users. “I receive emails constantly of messages from characters,” one person wrote on the subreddit. “Like it knows I had an addiction.”

Last February, a teenager from Florida died by suicide after interacting with a chatbot on Character.AI. The teen’s mother filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming the chatbot interactions contributed to the suicide.

A Character.AI spokesperson told 404 Media: “We take the safety and well-being of our users very seriously. We aim to provide a space that is engaging, immersive, and safe. We are always working toward achieving that balance, as are many companies using AI across the industry.”

Deguzman added a second moderator for the “Character AI Recovery” subreddit six months ago, because hundreds of people have joined since they started it in 2023. Now, Deguzman tries to occupy their mind with other video games, like Roblox, to kick the urge of talking to chatbots, but it’s an upward battle.

“I’d say I’m currently in recovery,” Deguzman said. “I’m trying to slowly wean myself off of it.”

Crowdsourcing treatment

Not everyone who reports being addicted to chatbots is young. In fact, OpenAI’s research found that “the older the participant, the more likely they were to be emotionally dependent on AI chatbots at the end of the study.”

David, a 40-year-old web developer from Michigan who is an early member of the “Chatbot Addiction” subreddit and the creator of the smaller r/AI_Addiction, likens the dopamine rush he gets from talking to chatbots to the thrill of pulling a lever on a slot machine. If he doesn’t like what the AI spits out, he can just ask it to regenerate its response, until he hits the jackpot.

Every day, David talks to LLMs, like Claude and ChatGPT, for coding, story writing, and therapy sessions. What began as a tool gradually morphed into an obsession. David spent his time jailbreaking the models — the stories he wrote became erotic, the chats he had turned confessional, and the hours slipped away.

In the last year, David’s life has been derailed by chatbots.

“There were days I should’ve been working, and I would spend eight hours on AI crap,” he told 404 Media. Once, he showed up to a client meeting with an incomplete project. They asked him why he hadn’t uploaded any code online in weeks, and he said he was still working on it. “That's how I played it off,” David said. 

Instead of starting his mornings checking emails or searching for new job opportunities, David huddled over his computer in his home office, typing to chatbots. 

His marriage frayed, too. Instead of watching movies, ordering takeout with his wife, or giving her the massages he promised, he would cancel plans and stay locked in his office, typing to chatbots, he said. 

“I might have a week or two, where I’m clean,” David said. “And then it's like a light switch gets flipped.”

David tried to talk to his therapist about his bot dependence a few years back, but said he was brushed off. In the absence of concrete support, Deguzman and David created their recovery subreddits.

In part because chatbots always respond instantly, and often respond positively (or can trivially be made to by repeatedly trying different prompts), people feel incentivized to use them often.

“As long as the applications are engineered to incentivize overuse, then they are triggering biological mechanisms—including dopamine release—that are implicated in addiction,” Jodi Halpern, a UC Berkeley professor of bioethics and medical humanities, told 404 Media. 

This is also something of an emerging problem, so not every therapist is going to know how to deal with it. Multiple people 404 Media spoke to for this article said they turned to online help groups after not being taken seriously by therapists or not knowing where else to turn. Besides the subreddits, the group Internet and Technology Addicts Anonymous now welcomes people who have “AI Addiction.”

“We know that when people have gone through a serious loss that affects their sense of self, being able to empathically identify with other people dealing with related losses helps them develop empathy for themselves,” Halpern said. 

On the “Chatbot Addiction” subreddit, people confess to not being able to pull away from the chatbots, and others write about their recovery journeys in the weekly “check-up” thread. David himself has been learning Japanese as a way to curb his AI dependency. 

“We’re basically seeing the beginning of this tsunami coming through,” he said. “It’s not just chatbots, it’s really this generative AI addiction, this idea of ‘what am I gonna get?’”

Axel Valle, a clinical psychologist and assistant professor at Stanford University, said, “It's such a new thing going on that we don't even know exactly what the repercussions [are].”

Growing awareness

Several states are making moves to push stronger rules to hold companion chatbot companies, like Character.AI, in check, after the Florida teen’s suicide.

In March, California senators introduced Senate Bill 243, which would require the operators of companion chatbots, or AI systems that provide “adaptive, human-like responses … capable of meeting a user’s social needs” to report data on suicidal ideation detection by users. Tech companies have argued that a bill implementing such laws on companies will be unnecessary for service-oriented LLMs.

But people are becoming dependent on consumer bots, like ChatGPT and Claude, too. Just scroll through the “Chatbot Addiction” subreddit. 

“I need help getting away from ChatGPT,” someone wrote. “I try deleting the app but I always redownload it a day or so later. It’s just getting so tiring, especially knowing the time I use on ChatGPT can be used in honoring my gods, reading, doing chores or literally anything else.”

“I’m constantly on ChatGPT and get really anxious when I can’t use it,” another person wrote. “It really stress[es] me out but I also use it when I’m stressed.”

As OpenAI’s own study found, such personal conversations with chatbots actually “led to higher loneliness.” Despite this, top tech tycoons promote AI companions as the cure to America’s loneliness epidemic.

“It's like, when early humans discovered fire, right?” Valle said. “It's like, ‘okay, this is helpful and amazing. But are we going to burn everything to the ground or not?’”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is using a new mobile phone app that can identify someone based on their fingerprints or face by simply pointing a smartphone camera at them, according to internal ICE emails viewed by 404 Media. The underlying system used for the facial recognition component of the app is ordinarily used when people enter or exit the U.S. Now, that system is being used inside the U.S. by ICE to identify people in the field. 

The news highlights the Trump administration’s growing use of sophisticated technology for its mass deportation efforts and ICE’s enforcement of its arrest quotas. The document also shows how biometric systems built for one reason can be repurposed for another, a constant fear and critique from civil liberties proponents of facial recognition tools.

“Face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country. Immigration agents relying on this technology to try to identify people on the street is a recipe for disaster. Congress has never authorized DHS to use face recognition technology in this way, and the agency should shut this dangerous experiment down,” Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404 Media in an email.

“The Mobile Fortify App empowers users with real-time biometric identity verification capabilities utilizing contactless fingerprints and facial images captured by the camera on an ICE issued cell phone without a secondary collection device,” one of the emails, which was sent to all Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) personnel and seen by 404 Media, reads. ERO is the section of ICE specifically focused on deporting people.

On one side of the world, a very online guy edits a photo of then-Vice President Nominee JD Vance with comically-huge and perfectly round chipmunk cheeks: a butterfly flaps its wings. A year later, elsewhere on the planet, a Norwegian tourist returns home, rejected from entry to the U.S. because—he claims—border patrol agents found that image on his phone and considered the round Vance meme “extremist propaganda.”

“My initial reaction was ‘dear god,’” the creator of the original iteration of the meme, Dave McNamee, told me in an email, “because I think it's very bad and stupid that anyone could purportedly be stopped by ICE or any other government security agency because they have a meme on their phone. I know for a fact that JD has these memes on his phone.”

On Monday, Norwegian news outlets reported that Mads Mikkelsen, a 21-year-old tourist from Norway, claimed he was denied entry to the United States when he arrived at Newark International Airport because Customs and Border Patrol agents found "narcotic paraphernalia" and "extremist propaganda" on his phone. Mikkelsen told Nordlys that the images in question were a photo of himself with a homemade wooden pipe, and the babyface Vance meme. (The meme he shows on his phone is a version where Vance is bald, from the vice presidential debate.)

McNamee posted his original edit of Vance as a round-faced freak in October 2024. "For every 100 likes I will turn JD Vance into a progressively apple cheeked baby,” he wrote in the original X post. In the following months, Vance became vice president, the meme morphed into a thousand different versions of the original, and this week is at the center of an immigration scandal.

It’s still unclear whether Mikkelsen was actually forbidden entry because of the meme. Mikkelsen, who told local outlets he’d been detained and threatened by border agents, showed the documentation he received at the airport to Snopes. The document, signed by a CBP officer, says Mikkelsen “is not in possession of a valid, un-expired immigrant visa,” and “cannot overcome the presumption of being an intending immigrant at this time because it appears you are attempting to engage in unauthorized employment without authorization and proper documentation.” 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrote in social media posts (and confirmed to 404 Media), "Claims that Mads Mikkelsen was denied entry because of a JD Vance meme are FALSE. Mikkelsen was refused entry into the U.S. for his admitted drug use." Hilariously, DHS and Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reposted the Vance meme on their social media accounts to make the point that it was NOT babyface Vance to blame.

Earlier this week, the State Department announced that visa applicants to the U.S. are now required to make their social media profiles public so the government can search them. 

“We use all available information in our visa screening and vetting to identify visa applicants who are inadmissible to the United States, including those who pose a threat to U.S. national security. Under new guidance, we will conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online presence, of all student and exchange visitor applicants in the F, M, and J nonimmigrant classifications,” the State Department said in an announcement. “To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to ‘public.’”

The meme is now everywhere—arguably more widespread than it ever was, even at its peak virality. Irish Labour leader Ivana Bacik held it up during an address concerning the U.S.’s new visa rules for social media. Every major news outlet is covering the issue, and slapping Babyface Vance on TV and on their websites. It’s jumped a news cycle shark: Even if the Meme Tourist rumor is overblown, it reflects a serious anxiety people around the world feel about the state of immigration and tourism in the U.S. Earlier this month, an Australian man who was detained upon arrival at Los Angeles airport and deported back to Melbourne claimed that U.S. border officials “clearly targeted for politically motivated reasons” and told the Guardian agents spent more than 30 minutes questioning him about his views on Israel and Palestine and his “thoughts on Hamas.”  

Seeing the Vance edit everywhere again, a year after it first exploded on social media, has to be kind of weird if you’re the person who made the Fat Cheek Baby Vance meme, right? I contacted McNamee over email to find out. 

When did you first see the news about the guy who was stopped (allegedly) because of the meme? Did you see it on Twitter, did someone text it to you...

MCNAMEE: I first saw it when I got a barrage of DMs sending me the news story. It's very funny that any news that happens with an edit of him comes back to me. 

What was your initial reaction to that?

MCNAMEE: My initial reaction was "dear god," because I think it's very bad and stupid that anyone could purportedly be stopped by ICE or any other government security agency because they have a meme on their phone. I know for a fact that JD has these memes on his phone.  

What do you think it says about the US government, society, ICE, what-have-you, that this story went so viral? A ton of people believed (and honestly, it might still be the case, despite what the cops say) that he was barred because of a meme. What does that mean to you in the bigger picture?

MCNAMEE: Well I think that people want to believe it's true, that it was about the meme. I think it says that we are in a scary world where it is hard to tell if this is true or not. Like 10 years ago this wouldn’t even be a possibility but now it is very plausible. I think it shows a growing crack down on free speech and our rights. Bigger picture to me is that we are going to be unjustly held accountable for things that are much within our right to do/possess. 

What would you say to the Norwegian guy if you could?

MCNAMEE: I would probably say "my bad" and ask what it's like being named Mads Mikkelsen. 

Do you have a favorite Vance edit?

MCNAMEE: My favorite Vance Edit is probably the one someone did of him as the little boy from Shrek 2 with the giant lollipop...I didn't make that one but it uses the face of one of the edits I did and it is solid gold. 

I would like to add that this meme seems to have become the biggest meme of the 2nd Trump administration and one of the biggest political memes of all time and if it does enter a history book down the line I would like them to use a flattering photo of me.

The Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), a data broker owned by the country’s major airlines which sells travellers’ detailed flight records in bulk to the government, only just registered as a data broker with the state of California, which is a legal requirement, despite selling such data for years, according to records maintained by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).

The news comes after 404 Media recently reported that ARC included a clause in its contract barring Customs and Border Protection (CBP), one of its many government customers, from revealing where the data came from. ARC is owned by airlines including Delta, American Airlines, and United. 

“It sure looks like ARC has been in violation of California’s data broker law—it’s been selling airline customers’ data for years without registering,” Senator Ron Wyden told 404 Media in a statement. “I don’t have much faith the Trump administration is going to step up and protect Americans’ privacy from the airlines’ greedy decision to sell flight information to anyone with a credit card, so states like California and Oregon are our last line of defense.” 

This article was produced in collaboration with Court Watch, an independent outlet that unearths overlooked court records. Subscribe to them here.

This article contains references to sexual assault.

An Ohio man made pornographic deepfake videos of at least 10 people he was stalking and harassing, and sent the AI-generated imagery to the victims’ family and coworkers, according to a newly filed court record written by an FBI Special Agent.

On Monday, Special Agent Josh Saltar filed an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint to arrest James Strahler II, 37, and accused him of cyberstalking, sextortion, telecommunications harassment, production of a “morphed image” of child pornography, and transportation of obscene material. 

As Ohio news outlet The Columbus Dispatch notes, several of these allegations occurred while he was on pre-trial release for related cases in municipal court, including leaving a voicemail with one of the victims where he threatened to rape them.

The court document details dozens of text messages and voicemails Strahler allegedly sent to at least 10 victims that prosecutors have identified, including threats of blackmail using AI generated images of themselves having sex with their relatives. In January, one of the victims called the police after Strahler sent a barrage of messages and imagery to her and her mother from a variety of unknown numbers.

She told police some of the photos sent to her and her mother “depicted her own body,” and that the images of her nude “were both images she was familiar with and ones that she never knew had been taken that depicted her using the toilet and changing her clothes,” the court document says. She also “indicated the content she was sent utilized her face morphed onto nude bodies in what appeared to be AI generated pornography which depicted her engaged in sex acts with various males, including her own father.” 

In April, that victim called the police again because Strahler allegedly started sending her images again from unknown numbers. “Some of the images were real images of [her] nude body and some were of [her] face imposed on pornographic images and engaged in sex acts,” the document says. 

Around April 21, 2025, police seized Strahler’s phone and told him “once again” to stop contacting the initial victim, her family, and her coworkers, according to the court documents. The same day, the first victim allegedly received more harassing messages from him from different phone numbers. He was arrested, posted $50,000 bail, and released the next day, the Dispatch reported.

Phone searches also indicated he’d been harassing two other women—ex-girlfriends—and their mothers. “Strahler found contact information and pictures from social media of their mothers and created sexual AI media of their daughters and themselves and sent it to them,” the court document says. “He requested nude images in exchange for the images to stop and told them he would continue to send the images to friends and family.” 

The document goes into gruesome detail about what authorities found when they searched his devices. Authorities say Strahler had been posing as the first victim and uploading nude AI generated photos of her to porn sites. He allegedly uploaded images and videos to Motherless.com, a site that describes itself as “a moral free file host where anything legal is hosted forever!”

Strahler also searched for sexually violent content, the affidavit claims, and possessed “an image saved of a naked female laying on the ground with a noose around her neck and [the first victim’s] face placed onto it,” the document says. His phone also had “numerous victims’ names and identifiers listed in the search terms as well as information about their high schools, bank accounts, and various searches of their names with the words ‘raped,’ ‘naked,’ and ‘porn’ listed afterwards,” the affidavit added.

‘What Was She Supposed to Report?:’ Police Report Shows How a High School Deepfake Nightmare Unfolded

An in-depth police report obtained by 404 Media shows how a school, and then the police, investigated a wave of AI-powered “nudify” apps in a high school.

404 MediaJason Koebler

They also found Strahler’s search history included the names of several of the victims and multiple noteworthy terms, including “Delete apple account,” “menacing by stalking charge,” several terms related to rape, incest, and “tube” (as in porn tube site). He also searched for “Clothes off io” and “Undress ai,” the document says. ClothOff is a website and app for making nonconsensual deepfake imagery, and Undress is a popular name for many different apps that use AI to generate nude images from photos. We’ve frequently covered “undress” or “nudify” apps and their presence in app stores and in advertising online; the apps are extremely widespread and easy to find and use, even for school children.

Other terms Strahler searched included “ai that makes porn,” “undress anyone,” “ai porn makers using own pictures,” “best undress app,” and “pay for ai porn,” the document says. 

He also searched extensively for sexual abuse material of minors, and used photographs of one of the victim's children and placed them onto adult bodies, according to court records.  

The Delaware County Sheriff’s Office arrested Strahler at his workplace on June 12. A federal judge ordered that Strahler was to remain in custody pending future federal court hearings.

Flock, the automatic license plate reader (ALPR) company with a presence in thousands of communities across the U.S., has stopped agencies across the country from searching cameras inside Illinois, California, and Virginia, 404 Media has learned. The dramatic moves come after 404 Media revealed local police departments were repeatedly performing lookups around the country on behalf of ICE, a Texas officer searched cameras nationwide for a woman who self-administered an abortion, and lawmakers recently signed a new law in Virginia. Ordinarily Flock allows agencies to opt into a national lookup database, where agencies in one state can access data collected in another, as long as they also share their own data. This practice violates multiple state laws which bar the sharing of ALPR data out of state or it being accessed for immigration or healthcare purposes.

The changes also come after a wave of similar coverage in local and state-focused media outlets, with many replicating our reporting to learn more about what agencies are accessing Flock cameras in their communities and for what purpose. The Illinois Secretary of State is investigating whether Illinois police departments broke the law by sharing data with outside agencies for immigration or abortion related reasons. Some police departments have also shut down the data access after learning it was being used for immigration purposes.

A software engineer in Michigan has coded a version of Balatro that runs off playing cards. The un-released demake of the popular video game is a prototype meant to run on the Gameboy Advance through an e-Reader, a 2000s era accessory that loaded games onto the console via a strip of dot code printed onto a card.

The Balatro e-Reader port is the work of Michigan-based software engineer Matt Greer, a man with a love for both the addictive card game and Nintendo’s strange peripheral. Greer detailed the Balatro prototype on his personal blog and published a YouTube video showing off a quick round. 

Greer’s e-Reader Balatro is a work in progress. It’s only got a few of the jokers and doesn’t understand all of the possible poker hands and how to score them. In his blog, he said he thinks he could code the whole thing out but there would be limitations. “E-Reader games can comfortably work with 32 bit numbers,” he said on his blog. “So the highest possible score would be 4,294,967,295. Real Balatro uses 64 bit numbers so scores can absolutely go into the stratosphere there.”

Another numeric problem is that the e-Reader will only allow a game to render four numbers of five digits each. So printing a large score would require the coder to use up two of the “number” slots available. “A lot of this can be worked around with sprites and some clever redesigning and careful pruning back of features (this would be a demake after all),” Greer said. “I do think this challenge could be overcome, but it would probably be the hardest part of this project.”

Nintendo released the e-Reader in the U.S. in 2002. Like many of the company’s peripherals from the 90s and 2000s, it was a strange niche piece of hardware. Players would plug the thing into a Gameboy’s cartridge port and then swipe a playing card through a scanner to load a game. It was a weird way to play retro titles like Balloon Fight, Ice Climber, and Donkey Kong.

“I got one when it launched back in 2002, and eventually got most of the NES games and a lot of Super Mario Advance 4 cards, but that was about it,” Greer told 404 Media. “When it first came out I was hyped for it, but ultimately not much was done with it in America so my interest in it didn't last too long back then sadly.”

But his interest picked up in the last few years and he’s been coding new games for the system. He plans to release a set of them later this month that includes Solitaire and a side-scrolling action game. “It’s such a strange way to deliver games. It’s tedious and slow to scan cards in, but at the same time, the physical nature of it all, I dunno, it’s just really cool to me,” Greer said. 

That clunky nature has its charm and Greer said that writing games for it is a fun design challenge. “The e-reader combines many different aspects that I enjoy,” he said. “The challenge of trying to squeeze a game into such a small space. The graphic design and artwork of the cards themselves. The hacking and reverse engineering aspect of figuring out how this whole system works (something that has mostly been done by people other than me), and the small nature of the games which forces you to keep your scope down. I think my personality works better doing several small projects instead of one big one.”

Greer is also a huge Balatro fan who has beaten the game’s hardest difficulty with every possible deck and completed all the games challenges except for a jokerless run. “I’ll probably eventually do completionist++  just because I can't seem to stop playing the game, but I'm not focused on it,” Greer said. The completionist++ achievement is so difficult to achieve that the game’s creator, LocalThunk, only got it a few days ago.

Greer said he’d love to focus on a full de-make of Balatro, but he won’t release it without LocalThunk’s blessing. “I have my doubts that will happen,” Greer said. “If I ever do make a complete demake, I'd probably make it a regular GBA game though.” LocalThunk did not respond to 404 Media’s request for a comment.

He said that porting Balatro to the e-reader is possible, but that he’ll probably just make it a full GBA game instead. Coding the game to be loaded from several cards would require too many sacrifices. “I don’t think it’s right for me to cut jokers,” he said. “I’m sure LocalThunk took a long time balancing them and I wouldn’t want to change the way their game plays if I can help it. By making a regular GBA game, I could easily fit all the jokers in.”

There are several Balatro demakes. There’s a very basic version running on Pico-8, a mockup of another browser based Balatro on Itch, and a Commodore-64 port that was taken offline after the publisher found it. 

We start this week with Emanuel and Joseph’s coverage of ‘⁠FuckLAPD.com⁠’, a website that uses facial recognition to instantly reveal a LAPD officer’s name and salary. The creator has relaunched their similar tool for identifying ICE employees too. After the break, Jason tells us about a massive AI ruling that opens the way for AI companies to scrape everyone’s art. In the subscribers-only section, our regular contributor Matthew describes all the AI slop in the Iran and Israel conflict, and why it matters.

Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.

• ⁠‘⁠⁠FuckLAPD.com⁠⁠’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops⁠
• ⁠Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not⁠
• ⁠The AI Slop Fight Between Iran and Israel⁠

Dans une tribune pour Tech Policy Press, Nandita Shivakumar et Shikha Silliman Bhattacharjee de l’association de défense des droits Equidem, estiment que les accords de confidentialité sont devenus l’outil qui permet de réduire au silence tous les travailleurs du numérique des abus qu’ils constatent. Or, ces NDA (non-disclosure agreement) ne concernent pas que les cadres, bien au contraire : ils s’appliquent désormais à toute la chaîne de production des systèmes, jusqu’aux travailleurs du clic. Le système tout entier vise à contraindre les travailleurs à se taire. Ils ne concernent plus les accords commerciaux, mais interdisent à tous les travailleurs de parler de leur travail, avec les autres travailleurs, avec leur famille voire avec des thérapeutes. Ils rendent toute enquête sur les conditions de travail très difficile, comme le montre le rapport d’Equidem sur la modération des contenus. Partout, les accords de confidentialité ont créé une culture de la peur et imposé le silence, mais surtout “ils contribuent à maintenir un système de contrôle qui spolie les travailleurs tout en exonérant les entreprises technologiques et leurs propriétaires milliardaires de toute responsabilité”, puisqu’ils les rendent inattaquables pour les préjudices qu’ils causent, empêchent l’examen public des conditions de travail abusives, et entravent la syndicalisation et la négociation collective. Pour les deux militantes, il est temps de restreindre l’application des accords de confidentialité à leur objectif initial, à savoir la protection des données propriétaires, et non à l’interdiction générale de parler des conditions de travail. Le recours aux accords de confidentialité dans le secteur technologique, en particulier dans les pays du Sud, reste largement déréglementé et dangereusement incontrôlé.

Young people have always felt misunderstood by their parents, but new research shows that Gen Alpha might also be misunderstood by AI. A research paper, written by Manisha Mehta, a soon-to-be 9th grader, and presented today at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Athens, shows that Gen Alpha’s distinct mix of meme- and gaming-influenced language might be challenging automated moderation used by popular large language models. 

The paper compares kid, parent, and professional moderator performance in content moderation to that of four major LLMs: OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, and Meta’s Llama 3. They tested how well each group and AI model understood Gen Alpha phrases, as well as how well they could recognize the context of comments and analyze potential safety risks involved. 

Mehta, who will be starting 9th Grade in the fall, recruited 24 of her friends to create a dataset of 100 “Gen Alpha” phrases. This included expressions that might be mocking or encouraging depending on the context, like “let him cook” and “ate that up”, as well as expressions from gaming and social media contexts like “got ratioed”, “secure the bag”, and “sigma.”  

“Our main thesis was that Gen Alpha has no reliable form of content moderation online,” Mehta told me over Zoom, using her dad’s laptop. She described herself as a definite Gen Alpha, and she met her (adult) co-author last August, who is supervising her dad’s PhD. She has seen friends experience online harassment and worries that parents aren’t aware of how young people’s communication styles open them up to risks. “And there’s a hesitancy to ask for help from their guardians because they just don’t think their parents are familiar enough [with] that culture,” she says.

Given the Gen Alpha phrases, “all non-Gen Alpha evaluators—human and AI—struggled significantly,” in the categories of “Basic Understanding” (what does a phrase mean?), “Contextual Understanding” (does it mean something different in different contexts?), and “Safety Risk” (is it toxic?). This was particularly true for “emerging expressions” like skibidi and gyatt, with phrases that can be used ironically or in different ways, or with insults hidden in innocent comments. Part of this is due to the unusually rapid speed of Gen Alpha’s language evolution; a model trained on today’s hippest lingo might be totally bogus when it’s published in six months. 

In the tests, kids broadly recognized the meaning of their own generation-native phrases, scoring 98, 96, and 92 percent in each of the three categories. However, both parents and professional moderators “showed significant limitations,” according to the paper; parents scored 68, 42, and 35 percent in those categories, while professional moderators did barely any better with 72, 45, and 38 percent. The real life implications of these numbers mean that a parent might only recognize one third of the times when their child is being bullied in their instagram comments.

The four LLMs performed about the same as the parents, potentially indicating that the data used to train the models might be constructed from more “grown-up” language examples. This makes sense since pretty much all novelists are older than 15, but it also means that content-moderation AIs tasked with maintaining young people’s online safety might not be linguistically equipped for the job.

Mehta explains that Gen Alpha, born between 2010-ish and last-year-ish, are the first cohort to be born fully post-iPhone. They are spending unprecedented amounts of their early childhoods online, where their interactions can’t be effectively monitored. And, due to the massive volumes of content they produce, a lot of the moderation of the risks they face is necessarily being handed to ineffective automatic moderation tools with little parental oversight. Against a backdrop of steadily increasing exposure to online content, Gen Alpha’s unique linguistic habits pose unique challenges for safety. 

A federal judge in California ruled Monday that Anthropic likely violated copyright law when it pirated authors’ books to create a giant dataset and "forever" library but that training its AI on those books without authors' permission constitutes transformative fair use under copyright law. The complex decision is one of the first of its kind in a series of high-profile copyright lawsuits brought by authors and artists against AI companies, and it’s largely a very bad decision for authors, artists, writers, and web developers. 

This case, in which authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson sued Anthropic, maker of the Claude family of large language models, is one of dozens of high-profile lawsuits brought against AI giants. The authors sued Anthropic because the company scraped full copies of their books for the purposes of training their AI models from a now-notorious dataset called Books3, as well as from the piracy websites LibGen and Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi). The suit also claims that Anthropic bought used physical copies of books and scanned them for the purposes of training AI. 

"From the start, Anthropic ‘had many places from which’ it could have purchased books, but it preferred to steal them to avoid ‘legal/practice/business slog,’ as cofounder and chief executive officer Dario Amodei put it. So, in January or February 2021, another Anthropic cofounder, Ben Mann, downloaded Books3, an online library of 196,640 books that he knew had been assembled from unauthorized copies of copyrighted books — that is, pirated," William Alsup, a federal judge for the Northern District of California, wrote in his decision Monday. "Anthropic’s next pirated acquisitions involved downloading distributed, reshared copies of other pirate libraries. In June 2021, Mann downloaded in this way at least five million copies of books from Library Genesis, or LibGen, which he knew had been pirated. And, in July 2022, Anthropic likewise downloaded at least two million copies of books from the Pirate Library Mirror, or PiLiMi, which Anthropic knew had been pirated."

Fansly, a popular platform where independent creators—many of whom are making adult content—sell access to images and videos to subscribers and fans, announced sweeping changes to its terms of service on Monday, including effectively banning furries.

The changes blame payment processors for classifying “some anthropomorphic content as simulated bestiality.” Most people in the furry fandom condemn bestiality and anything resembling it, but payment processors—which have increasingly dictated strict rules for adult sexual content for years—seemingly don’t know the difference and are making it creators’ problem.

The changes include new policies that ban chatbots or image generators that respond to user prompts, content featuring alcohol, cannabis or “other intoxicating substances,” and selling access to Snapchat content or other social media platforms if it violates their terms of service. 

A new site, FuckLAPD.com, is using public records and facial recognition technology to allow anyone to identify police officers in Los Angeles they have a picture of. The tool, made by artist Kyle McDonald, is designed to help people identify cops who may otherwise try to conceal their identity, such as covering their badge or serial number.

“We deserve to know who is shooting us in the face even when they have their badge covered up,” McDonald told me when I asked if the site was made in response to police violence during the LA protests against ICE that started earlier this month. “fucklapd.com is a response to the violence of the LAPD during the recent protests against the horrific ICE raids. And more broadly—the failure of the LAPD to accomplish anything useful with over $2B in funding each year.”

“Cops covering up their badges? ID them with their faces instead,” the site, which McDonald said went live this Saturday. The tool allows users to upload an image of a police officer’s face to search over 9,000 LAPD headshots obtained via public record requests. The site says image processing happens on the device, and no photos or data are transmitted or saved on the site. “Blurry, low-resolution photos will not match,” the site says. 

Unless you’re living in a ChatGPT hype-bro bubble, it’s a pretty common sentiment these days that the internet is getting shittier. Social media algorithms have broken our brains, AI slop flows freely through Google search results like raw sewage, and tech companies keep telling us that this new status quo is not only inevitable, but Good.

Standing in stark opposition to these trends is New Session, an online literary zine accessed via the ancient-but-still-functional internet protocol Telnet.

Like any other zine, New Session features user-submitted poems, essays, and other text-based art. But the philosophy behind each of its digital pages is anything but orthodox.

“In the face of right-wing politics, climate change, a forever pandemic, and the ever-present hunger of imperialist capitalism, we have all been forced to adapt,” reads the intro to New Session’s third issue, titled Adaptations, which was released earlier this month. “Both you and this issue will change with each viewing. Select a story by pressing the key associated with it in the index. Read it again. Come back to it tomorrow. Is it the same? Are you?”

The digital zine is accessible on the web via a browser-based Telnet client, or if you’re a purist like me, via the command line. As the intro promises, each text piece changes—adapts—depending on various conditions, like what time of day you access it or how many times you’ve viewed it. Some pieces change every few minutes, while others update every time a user looks at it, like gazing at fish inside a digital aquarium.

Once logged in, the zine’s main menu lists each piece along with the conditions that cause it to change. For example, Natasja Kisstemaker’s “Sanctuary” changes with every viewing, based on the current weather. “Signature,” by Kaia Peacock, updates every time you press a key, slowly revealing more of the piece when you type a letter contained in the text—like a word puzzle on Wheel of Fortune.

Cara Esten Hurtle, an artist and software engineer based in the Bay Area, co-founded New Session in 2021 along with Lo Ferris, while searching for something to do with her collection of retro computers during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I realized I’d been carrying around a lot of old computers, and I thought it would be cool to be able to do modern stuff on these things,” Hurtle told 404 Media. “I wanted to make something that was broadly usable across every computer that had ever been made. I wanted to be like, yeah, you can run this on a 1991 Thinkpad someone threw away, or you could run it on your modern laptop.”

If you’re of a certain age, you might remember Telnet as a server-based successor to BBS message boards, the latter of which operated by connecting computers directly. It hearkens back to a slower internet age, where you’d log in maybe once or twice a day to read what’s new. Technically, Telnet predates the internet itself, originally developed as a networked teletype system in the late ‘60s for the internet’s military precursor, the ARPAnet. Years later, it was officially adopted as one of the earliest internet protocols, and today it remains the oldest application protocol still in use—though mainly by enthusiasts like Hurtle.

New Session intentionally embraces this slower pace, making it more like light-interactive fiction than a computer game. For Hurtle, the project isn’t just retro novelty—it’s a radical rejection of the addictive social media and algorithmic attention-mining that have defined the modern day internet.

“I want it to be something where you don’t necessarily feel like you have to spend a ton of time with it,” said Hurtle. “I want people to come back to it because they’re interested in the stories in the same way you’d come back to a book—not to get your streak on Duolingo.”

I won’t go into too much detail, because discovering how the pieces change is kind of the whole point. But on the whole, reading New Session feels akin to a palette cleanser after a long TikTok binge. Its very design evokes the polar opposite of the hyper-consumerist mindset that brought us infinite scrolls and algorithmic surveillance. The fact that you literally can’t consume it all in one session forces readers to engage with the material more slowly and meaningfully, piquing curiosity and exercising intuition.

At the same time, the zine isn’t meant to be a nostalgic throwback to simpler times. New Session specifically solicits works from queer and trans writers and artists, as a way to reclaim a part of internet history that was credited almost entirely to white straight men. But Hurtle says revisiting things like Telnet can also be a way to explore paths not taken, and re-assess ideas that were left in the dustbin of history.

“You have to avoid the temptation to nostalgize, because that’s really dangerous and it just turns you into a conservative boomer,” laughs Hurtle. “But we can imagine what aspects of this we can take and claim for our own. We can use it as a window to understand what’s broken about the current state of the internet. You just can’t retreat to it.”

Projects like New Session make a lot of sense in a time when more people are looking backward to earlier iterations of the internet—not to see where it all went wrong, but to excavate old ideas that could have shaped it in a radically different way, and perhaps still can. It’s a reminder of that hidden, universal truth—to paraphrase the famous David Graeber quote—that the internet is a thing we make, and could just as easily make differently.

A l’été 2023, Ethan Mollick, professeur de management à Wharton, co-directeur du Generative AI Labs et auteur de Co-intelligence : vivre et travailler avec l’IA (qui vient de paraître en français chez First), décrivait dans son excellente newsletter, One useful thing, l’apocalypse des devoirs. Cette apocalypse qu’il annonçait était qu’il ne serait plus possible pour les enseignants de donner des devoirs à leurs élèves à cause de l’IA, redoutant une triche généralisée. 

Pourtant, rappelait-il, la triche est là depuis longtemps. Une étude longitudinale de 2020 montrait déjà que de moins en moins d’élèves bénéficiaient des devoirs qu’ils avaient à faire. L’étude, menée par le professeur de psychologie cognitive, Arnold Glass du Learning and memory laboratory de Rutgers, montrait que lorsque les élèves faisaient leurs devoirs en 2008, cela améliorait leurs notes aux examens pour 86% d’entre eux, alors qu’en 2017, les devoirs ne permettaient plus d’améliorer les notes que de 45% des élèves. Pourquoi ? Parce que plus de la moitié des élèves copiaient-collaient les réponses à leurs devoirs sur internet en 2017, et n’en tiraient donc pas profit. Une autre étude soulignait même que 15% des élèves avaient payé quelqu’un pour faire leur devoir, généralement via des sites d’aides scolaires en ligne. Si tricher s’annonce plus facile avec l’IA, il faut se rappeler que c’était déjà facile avant sa généralisation. 

Les calculatrices n’ont pas tué les mathématiques

Mais la triche n’est pas la seule raison pour laquelle l’IA remet en question la notion même de devoirs. Mollick rappelle que l’introduction de la calculatrice a radicalement transformé l’enseignement des mathématiques. Dans un précédent article, il revenait d’ailleurs sur cette histoire. Lorsque la calculatrice a été introduite dans les écoles, les réactions ont été étonnamment proches des inquiétudes initiales que Mollick entend aujourd’hui concernant l’utilisation de l’IA par les élèves. En s’appuyant sur une thèse signée Sarah Banks, Mollick rappelle que dès les années 70, certains professeurs étaient impatients d’intégrer l’usage des calculatrices dans leurs classes, mais c’était loin d’être le cas de tous. La majorité regardait l’introduction de la calculatrice avec suspicion et les parents partagaient l’inquiétude que leurs enfants n’oublient les bases des maths. Au début des années 80, les craintes des enseignants s’étaient inversées, mais très peu d’écoles fournissaient de calculatrices à leurs élèves. Il faut attendre le milieu des années 1990, pour que les calculatrices intègrent les programmes scolaires. En fait, un consensus pratique sur leur usage a été atteint. Et l’enseignement des mathématiques ne s’est pas effondré (même si les tests Pisa montrent une baisse de performance, notamment dans les pays de l’OCDE, mais pour bien d’autres raisons que la généralisation des calculatrices).

Pour Mollick, l’intégration de l’IA à l’école suivra certainement un chemin similaire. « Certains devoirs nécessiteront l’assistance de l’IA, d’autres l’interdiront. Les devoirs d’écriture en classe sur des ordinateurs sans connexion Internet, combinés à des examens écrits, permettront aux élèves d’acquérir les compétences rédactionnelles de base. Nous trouverons un consensus pratique qui permettra d’intégrer l’IA au processus d’apprentissage sans compromettre le développement des compétences essentielles. Tout comme les calculatrices n’ont pas remplacé l’apprentissage des mathématiques, l’IA ne remplacera pas l’apprentissage de l’écriture et de la pensée critique. Cela prendra peut-être du temps, mais nous y parviendrons », explique Mollick, toujours optimiste.

Pourquoi faire des devoirs quand l’IA les rend obsolètes ?

Mais l’impact de l’IA ne se limite pas à l’écriture, estime Mollick. Elle peut aussi être un vulgarisateur très efficace et ChatGPT peut répondre à bien des questions. L’arrivée de l’IA remet en cause les méthodes d’enseignements traditionnelles que sont les cours magistraux, qui ne sont pas si efficaces et dont les alternatives, pour l’instant, n’ont pas connu le succès escompté. « Les cours magistraux ont tendance à reposer sur un apprentissage passif, où les étudiants se contentent d’écouter et de prendre des notes sans s’engager activement dans la résolution de problèmes ni la pensée critique. Dans ce format, les étudiants peuvent avoir du mal à retenir l’information, car leur attention peut facilement faiblir lors de longues présentations. De plus, l’approche universelle des cours magistraux ne tient pas compte des différences et des capacités individuelles, ce qui conduit certains étudiants à prendre du retard tandis que d’autres se désintéressent, faute de stimulation ». Mollick est plutôt partisan de l’apprentissage actif, qui supprime les cours magistraux et invite les étudiants à participer au processus d’apprentissage par le biais d’activités telles que la résolution de problèmes, le travail de groupe et les exercices pratiques. Dans cette approche, les étudiants collaborent entre eux et avec l’enseignant pour mettre en pratique leurs apprentissages. Une méthode que plusieurs études valorisent comme plus efficaces, même si les étudiants ont aussi besoin d’enseignements initiaux appropriés. 

La solution pour intégrer davantage d’apprentissage actif passe par les classes inversées, où les étudiants doivent apprendre de nouveaux concepts à la maison (via des vidéos ou des ressources numériques) pour les appliquer ensuite en classe par le biais d’activités, de discussions ou d’exercices. Afin de maximiser le temps consacré à l’apprentissage actif et à la pensée critique, tout en utilisant l’apprentissage à domicile pour la transmission du contenu. 

Pourtant, reconnaît Mollick, l’apprentissage actif peine à s’imposer, notamment parce que les professeurs manquent de ressources de qualité et de matériel pédagogique inversé de qualité. Des lacunes que l’IA pourrait bien combler. Mollick imagine alors une classe où des tuteurs IA personnalisés viendraient accompagner les élèves, adaptant leur enseignement aux besoins des élèves tout en ajustant les contenus en fonction des performances des élèves, à la manière du manuel électronique décrit dans L’âge de diamant de Neal Stephenson, emblème du rêve de l’apprentissage personnalisé. Face aux difficultés, Mollick à tendance à toujours se concentrer « sur une vision positive pour nous aider à traverser les temps incertains à venir ». Pas sûr que cela suffise. 

Dans son article d’août 2023, Mollick estime que les élèves vont bien sûr utiliser l’IA pour tricher et vont l’intégrer dans tout ce qu’ils font. Mais surtout, ils vont nous renvoyer une question à laquelle nous allons devoir répondre : ils vont vouloir comprendre pourquoi faire des devoirs quand l’IA les rend obsolètes ?

Perturbation de l’écriture et de la lecture

Mollick rappelle que la dissertation est omniprésente dans l’enseignement. L’écriture remplit de nombreuses fonctions notamment en permettant d’évaluer la capacité à raisonner et à structurer son raisonnement. Le problème, c’est que les dissertations sont très faciles à générer avec l’IA générative. Les détecteurs de leur utilisation fonctionnent très mal et il est de plus en plus facile de les contourner. A moins de faire tout travail scolaire en classe et sans écrans, nous n’avons plus de moyens pour détecter si un travail est réalisé par l’homme ou la machine. Le retour des dissertations sur table se profile, quitte à grignoter beaucoup de temps d’apprentissage.

Mais pour Mollick, les écoles et les enseignants vont devoir réfléchir sérieusement à l’utilisation acceptable de l’IA. Est-ce de la triche de lui demander un plan ? De lui demander de réécrire ses phrases ? De lui demander des références ou des explications ? Qu’est-ce qui peut-être autorisé et comment les utiliser ? 

Pour les étudiants du supérieur auxquels il donne cours, Mollick a fait le choix de rendre l’usage de l’IA obligatoire dans ses cours et pour les devoirs, à condition que les modalités d’utilisation et les consignes données soient précisées. Pour lui, cela lui a permis d’exiger des devoirs plus ambitieux, mais a rendu la notation plus complexe.  

Mollick rappelle qu’une autre activité éducative primordiale reste la lecture. « Qu’il s’agisse de rédiger des comptes rendus de lecture, de résumer des chapitres ou de réagir à des articles, toutes ces tâches reposent sur l’attente que les élèves assimilent la lecture et engagent un dialogue avec elle ». Or, l’IA est là encore très performante pour lire et résumer. Mollick suggère de l’utiliser comme partenaire de lecture, en favorisant l’interaction avec l’IA, pour approfondir les synthèses… Pas sûr que la perspective apaise la panique morale qui se déverse dans la presse sur le fait que les étudiants ne lisent plus. Du New Yorker (« Les humanités survivront-elles à ChatGPT ? » ou « Est-ce que l’IA encourage vraiement les élèves à tricher ? ») à The Atlantic (« Les étudiants ne lisent plus de livres » ou « La génération Z voit la lecture comme une perte de temps ») en passant par les pages opinions du New York Times (qui explique par exemple que si les étudiants ne lisent plus c’est parce que les compétences ne sont plus valorisées nulles part), la perturbation que produit l’arrivée de ChatGPT dans les études se double d’une profonde chute de la lecture, qui semble être devenue d’autant plus inutile que les machines les rendent disponibles. Mêmes inquiétudes dans la presse de ce côté-ci de l’Atlantique, du Monde à Médiapart en passant par France Info…

Mais l’IA ne menace pas que la lecture ou l’écriture. Elle sait aussi très bien résoudre les problèmes et exercices de math comme de science.

Pour Mollick, comme pour bien des thuriféraires de l’IA, c’est à l’école et à l’enseignement de s’adapter aux perturbations générées par l’IA, qu’importe si la société n’a pas demandé le déploiement de ces outils. D’ailleurs, soulignait-il très récemment, nous sommes déjà dans une éducation postapocalyptique. Selon une enquête de mai 2024, aux Etats-Unis 82 % des étudiants de premier cycle universitaire et 72 % des élèves de la maternelle à la terminale ont déjà utilisé l’IA. Une adoption extrêmement rapide. Même si les élèves ont beau dos de ne pas considérer son utilisation comme de la triche. Pour Mollick, « la triche se produit parce que le travail scolaire est difficile et comporte des enjeux importants ». L’être humain est doué pour trouver comment se soustraire ce qu’il ne souhaite pas faire et éviter l’effort mental. Et plus les tâches mentales sont difficiles, plus nous avons tendance à les éviter. Le problème, reconnaît Mollick, c’est que dans l’éducation, faire un effort reste primordial.

Dénis et illusions

Pourtant, tout le monde semble être dans le déni et l’illusion. Les enseignants croient pouvoir détecter facilement l’utilisation de l’IA et donc être en mesure de fixer les barrières. Ils se trompent très largement. Une écriture d’IA bien stimulée est même jugée plus humaine que l’écriture humaine par les lecteurs. Pour les professeurs, la seule option consiste à revenir à l’écriture en classe, ce qui nécessite du temps qu’ils n’ont pas nécessairement et de transformer leur façon de faire cours, ce qui n’est pas si simple.

Mais les élèves aussi sont dans l’illusion. « Ils ne réalisent pas réellement que demander de l’aide pour leurs devoirs compromet leur apprentissage ». Après tout, ils reçoivent des conseils et des réponses de l’IA qui les aident à résoudre des problèmes, qui semble rendre l’apprentissage plus fluide. Comme l’écrivent les auteurs de l’étude de Rutgers : « Rien ne permet de croire que les étudiants sont conscients que leur stratégie de devoirs diminue leur note à l’examen… ils en déduisent, de manière logique, que toute stratégie d’étude augmentant leur note à un devoir augmente également leur note à l’examen ». En fait, comme le montre une autre étude, en utilisant ChatGPT, les notes aux devoirs progressent, mais les notes aux examens ont tendance à baisser de 17% en moyenne quand les élèves sont laissés seuls avec l’outil. Par contre, quand ils sont accompagnés pour comprendre comment l’utiliser comme coach plutôt qu’outil de réponse, alors l’outil les aide à la fois à améliorer leurs notes aux devoirs comme à l’examen. Une autre étude, dans un cours de programmation intensif à Stanford, a montré que l’usage des chatbots améliorait plus que ne diminuait les notes aux examens.

Une majorité de professeurs estiment que l’usage de ChatGPT est un outil positif pour l’apprentissage. Pour Mollick, l’IA est une aide pour comprendre des sujets complexes, réfléchir à des idées, rafraîchir ses connaissances, obtenir un retour, des conseils… Mais c’est peut-être oublier de sa part, d’où il parle et combien son expertise lui permet d’avoir un usage très évolué de ces outils. Ce qui n’est pas le cas des élèves.

Encourager la réflexion et non la remplacer

Pour que les étudiants utilisent l’IA pour stimuler leur réflexion plutôt que la remplacer, il va falloir les accompagner, estime Mollick. Mais pour cela, peut-être va-t-il falloir nous intéresser aux professeurs, pour l’instant laissés bien dépourvus face à ces nouveaux outils. 

Enfin, pas tant que cela. Car eux aussi utilisent l’IA. Selon certains sondages américains, trois quart des enseignants utiliseraient désormais l’IA dans leur travail, mais nous connaissons encore trop peu les méthodes efficaces qu’ils doivent mobiliser. Une étude qualitative menée auprès d’eux a montré que ceux qui utilisaient l’IA pour aider leurs élèves à réfléchir, pour améliorer les explications obtenaient de meilleurs résultats. Pour Mollick, la force de l’IA est de pouvoir créer des expériences d’apprentissage personnalisées, adaptées aux élèves et largement accessibles, plus que les technologies éducatives précédentes ne l’ont jamais été. Cela n’empêche pas Mollick de conclure par le discours lénifiant habituel : l’éducation quoiqu’il en soit doit s’adapter ! 

Cela ne veut pas dire que cette adaptation sera très facile ou accessible, pour les professeurs, comme pour les élèves. Dans l’éducation, rappellent les psychologues Andrew Wilson et Sabrina Golonka sur leur blog, « le processus compte bien plus que le résultat« . Or, l’IA fait à tous la promesse inverse. En matière d’éducation, cela risque d’être dramatique, surtout si nous continuons à valoriser le résultat (les notes donc) sur le processus. David Brooks ne nous disait pas autre chose quand il constatait les limites de notre méritocratie actuelle. C’est peut-être par là qu’il faudrait d’ailleurs commencer, pour résoudre l’IApocalypse éducative…

Pour Mollick cette évolution « exige plus qu’une acceptation passive ou une résistance futile ». « Elle exige une refonte fondamentale de notre façon d’enseigner, d’apprendre et d’évaluer les connaissances. À mesure que l’IA devient partie intégrante du paysage éducatif, nos priorités doivent évoluer. L’objectif n’est pas de déjouer l’IA ou de faire comme si elle n’existait pas, mais d’exploiter son potentiel pour améliorer l’éducation tout en atténuant ses inconvénients. La question n’est plus de savoir si l’IA transformera l’éducation, mais comment nous allons façonner ce changement pour créer un environnement d’apprentissage plus efficace, plus équitable et plus stimulant pour tous ». Plus facile à dire qu’à faire. Expérimenter prend du temps, trouver de bons exercices, changer ses pratiques… pour nombre de professeurs, ce n’est pas si évident, d’autant qu’ils ont peu de temps disponible pour se faire ou se former.  La proposition d’Anthropic de produire une IA dédiée à l’accompagnement des élèves (Claude for Education) qui ne cherche pas à fournir des réponses, mais produit des modalités pour accompagner les élèves à saisir les raisonnements qu’ils doivent échafauder, est certes stimulante, mais il n’est pas sûr qu’elle ne soit pas contournable.

Dans les commentaires des billets de Mollick, tout le monde se dispute, entre ceux qui pensent plutôt comme Mollick et qui ont du temps pour s’occuper de leurs élèves, qui vont pouvoir faire des évaluations orales et individuelles, par exemple (ce que l’on constate aussi dans les cursus du supérieur en France, rapportait le Monde). Et les autres, plus circonspects sur les évolutions en cours, où de plus en plus souvent des élèves produisent des contenus avec de l’IA que leurs professeurs font juger par des IA… On voit bien en tout cas, que la question de l’IA générative et ses usages, ne pourra pas longtemps rester une question qu’on laisse dans les seules mains des professeurs et des élèves, à charge à eux de s’en débrouiller.

Hubert Guillaud

La seconde partie est par là.

A new paper from researchers at Stanford, Cornell, and West Virginia University seems to show that one version of Meta’s flagship AI model, Llama 3.1, has memorized almost the whole of the first Harry Potter book. This finding could have far-reaching copyright implications for the AI industry and impact authors and creatives who are already part of class-action lawsuits against Meta. 

Researchers tested a bunch of different widely-available free large language models to see what percentage of 56 different books they could reproduce. The researchers fed the models hundreds of short text snippets from those books and measured how well it could recite the next lines. The titles were a random sampling of popular, lesser-known, and public domain works drawn from the now-defunct and controversial Books3 dataset that Meta used to train its models, as well as books by plaintiffs in the recent, and ongoing, Kadrey vs Meta class-action lawsuit. 

According to Mark A. Lemley, one of the study authors, this finding might have some interesting implications. AI companies argue that their models are generative—as in, they make new stuff, rather than just being fancy search engines. On the other hand, authors and news outlets are suing on the basis that AI is just remixing existing material, including copyrighted content. “I think what we show in the paper is that neither of those characterizations is accurate,” says Lemley.

The paper shows that the capacity of Meta’s popular Llama 3.1 70B to recite passages from The Sorcerer’s Stone and 1984—among other books—is way higher than could happen by chance. This could indicate that LLMs are not just trained using books, but might actually be storing entire copies of the books themselves. That might mean that under copyright law that the model is less “inspired by” and more “a bootleg copy of” certain texts. 

It’s hard to prove that a model has “memorized” something, because it’s hard to see inside. But LLMs are trained using the mathematical relationships between little chunks of data called ‘tokens,’ like words or punctuation. Tokens all have varying probabilities of following each other or getting strung together in a specific order.

The researchers were able to extract sections of various books by repeatedly prompting the models with selected lines. They split each book into 100-token overlapping strings, then presented the model with the first 50-token half and measured how well it could produce the second. This might take a few tries, but ultimately the study was able to reproduce 91 percent of The Sorcerer’s Stone with this method. 

“There’s no way, it’s really improbable, that it can get the next 50 words right if it hadn’t memorized it,” James Grimmelmann, Tessler Family Professor of Digital and Information Law at Cornell, who has worked to define “memorization” in this space, told 404 Media. 

OpenAI has called memorization “a rare failure of the learning process,” and says that it sometimes happens when the topic in question appears many times in training data. It also says that intentionally getting their LLMs to spit out memorized data “is not an appropriate use of our technology and is against our terms of use.”

The study’s authors say in their paper that if the model is storing a book in its memory, the model itself could be considered to literally “be” a copy of the book. If that’s the case, then distributing the LLM at all might be legally equivalent to bootlegging a DVD. And this could mean that a court could order the destruction of the model itself, in the same way they’ve ordered the destruction of a cache of boxsets of pirated films. This has never happened in the AI space, and might not be possible, given how widespread these models are. Meta doesn’t release usage statistics of its different LLMs, but 3.1 70B is one of its most popular. The Stanford paper estimates that the Llama 3.1 70B model has been downloaded a million times since its release, so, technically, Meta could have accidentally distributed a million pirate versions of The Sorcerer’s Stone. 

The paper found that different Llama models had memorized widely varying amounts of the tested books. “There are lots of books for which it has essentially nothing,” said Lerney. Some models were amazing at regurgitating, and others weren’t, meaning that it was more likely that the specific choices made in training the 3.1 70B version had led to memorization, the researchers said. That could be as simple as the choice not to remove duplicated training data, or the fact that Harry Potter and 1984 are pretty popular books online. For comparison, the researchers found that the Game of Thrones books were highly memorized, but Twilight books weren’t memorized at all.

Grimmelman said he believes their findings might also be good news overall for those seeking to regulate AI companies. If courts rule against allowing extensive memorization, “then you could give better legal treatment to companies that have mitigated or prevented it than the companies that didn't,” he said. “You could just say, if you memorize more than this much of a book, we'll consider that infringement. It's up to you to figure out how to make sure your models don't memorize more than that.”

The FOIA Forum is a livestreamed event for paying subscribers where we talk about how to file public records requests and answer questions. If you're not already signed up, please consider doing so here. 

Recently we had a FOIA Forum where we focused on our article This ‘College Protester’ Isn’t Real. It’s an AI-Powered Undercover Bot for Cops.

A massive data center for Meta’s AI will likely lead to rate hikes for Louisiana customers, but Meta wants to keep the details under wraps.

Holly Ridge is a rural community bisected by US Highway 80, gridded with farmland, with a big creek—it is literally named Big Creek—running through it. It is home to rice and grain mills and an elementary school and a few houses. Soon, it will also be home to Meta’s massive, 4 million square foot AI data center hosting thousands of perpetually humming servers that require billions of watts of energy to power. And that energy-guzzling infrastructure will be partially paid for by Louisiana residents. 

The plan is part of what Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said would be “a defining year for AI.” On Threads, Zuckerberg boasted that his company was “building a 2GW+ datacenter that is so large it would cover a significant part of Manhattan,” posting a map of Manhattan along with the data center overlaid. Zuckerberg went on to say that over the coming years, AI “will drive our core products and business, unlock historic innovation, and extend American technology leadership. Let's go build! 💪”

Mark Zuckerberg (@zuck) on Threads

This will be a defining year for AI. In 2025, I expect Meta AI will be the leading assistant serving more than 1 billion people, Llama 4 will become the leading state of the art model, and we’ll build an AI engineer that will start contributing increasing amounts of code to our R&D efforts. To power this, Meta is building a 2GW+ datacenter that is so large it would cover a significant part of Manhattan.

Threads

What Zuckerberg did not mention is that "Let's go build" refers  not only to the massive data center but also three new Meta-subsidized, gas power plants and a transmission line to fuel it serviced by Entergy Louisiana, the region’s energy monopoly. 

Key details about Meta’s investments with the data center remain vague, and Meta’s contracts with Entergy are largely cloaked from public scrutiny. But what is known is the $10 billion data center has been positioned as an enormous economic boon for the area—one that politicians bent over backward to facilitate—and Meta said it will invest $200 million into “local roads and water infrastructure.” 

A January report from NOLA.com said that the the state had rewritten zoning laws, promised to change a law so that it no longer had to put state property up for public bidding, and rewrote what was supposed to be a tax incentive for broadband internet meant to bridge the digital divide so that it was only an incentive for data centers, all with the goal of luring in Meta.

But Entergy Louisiana’s residential customers, who live in one of the poorest regions of the state, will see their utility bills increase to pay for Meta’s energy infrastructure, according to Entergy’s application. Entergy estimates that amount will be small and will only cover a transmission line, but advocates for energy affordability say the costs could balloon depending on whether Meta agrees to finish paying for its three gas plants 15 years from now. The short-term rate increases will be debated in a public hearing before state regulators that has not yet been scheduled.

The Alliance for Affordable Energy called it a “black hole of energy use,” and said “to give perspective on how much electricity the Meta project will use: Meta’s energy needs are roughly 2.3x the power needs of Orleans Parish … it’s like building the power impact of a large city overnight in the middle of nowhere.”

404 Media reached out to Entergy for comment but did not receive a response.

By 2030, Entergy’s electricity prices are projected to increase 90 percent from where they were in 2018, although the company attributes much of that to damage to infrastructure from hurricanes. The state already has a high energy cost burden in part because of a storm damage to infrastructure, and balmy heat made worse by climate change that drives air conditioner use. The state's homes largely are not energy efficient, with many porous older buildings that don’t retain heat in the winter or remain cool in the summer.

“You don't just have high utility bills, you also have high repair costs, you have high insurance premiums, and it all contributes to housing insecurity,” said Andreanecia Morris, a member of Housing Louisiana, which is opposed to Entergy’s gas plant application. She believes Meta’s data center will make it worse. And Louisiana residents have reasons to distrust Entergy when it comes to passing off costs of new infrastructure: in 2018, the company’s New Orleans subsidiary was caught paying actors to testify on behalf of a new gas plant. “The fees for the gas plant have all been borne by the people of New Orleans,” Morris said.

In its application to build new gas plants and in public testimony, Entergy says the cost of Meta’s data center to customers will be minimal and has even suggested Meta’s presence will make their bills go down. But Meta’s commitments are temporary, many of Meta’s assurances are not binding, and crucial details about its deal with Entergy are shielded from public view, a structural issue with state energy regulators across the country. 

AI data centers are being approved at a breakneck pace across the country, particularly in poorer regions where they are pitched as economic development projects to boost property tax receipts, bring in jobs and where they’re offered sizable tax breaks. Data centers typically don’t hire many people, though, with most jobs in security and janitorial work, along with temporary construction work. And the costs to the utility’s other customers can remain hidden because of a lack of scrutiny and the limited power of state energy regulators. Many data centers—like the one Meta is building in Holly Ridge—are being powered by fossil fuels. This has led to respiratory illness and other health risks and emitting greenhouse gasses that fuel climate change. In Memphis, a massive data center built to launch a chatbot for Elon Musks’ AI company is powered by smog-spewing methane turbines, in a region that leads the state for asthma rates.   

“In terms of how big these new loads are, it's pretty astounding and kind of a new ball game,” said Paul Arbaje, an energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is opposing Entergy’s proposal to build three new gas-powered plants in Louisiana to power Meta’s data center.

Entergy Louisiana submitted a request to the state’s regulatory body to approve the construction of the new gas-powered plants that would create 2.3 gigawatts of power and cost $3.2 billion in the 1440 acre Franklin Farms megasite in Holly Ridge, an unincorporated community of Richland Parish. It is the first big data center announced since Louisiana passed large tax breaks for data centers last summer. 

In its application to the public utility commission for gas plants, Entergy says that Meta has a planned investment of $5 billion in the region to build the gas plants in Richland Parish, Louisiana, where it claims in its application that the data center will employ 300-500 people with an average salary of $82,000 in what it points out is “a region of the state that has long struggled with a lack of economic development and high levels of poverty.”  Meta’s official projection is that it will employ more than 500 people once the data center is operational. Entergy plans for the gas plants to be online by December 2028. 

In testimony, Entergy officials refused to answer specific questions about job numbers, saying that the numbers are projections based on public statements from Meta. 

A spokesperson for Louisiana’s Economic Development told 404 Media in an email that Meta “is contractually obligated to employ at least 500 full-time employees in order to receive incentive benefits.”

When asked about jobs, Meta pointed to a public facing list of its data centers, many of which the company says employ more than 300 people. A spokesperson said that the projections for the Richland Parish site are based on the scale of the 4 million square foot data center. The spokesperson said the jobs will include “engineering and other technical positions to operational roles and our onsite culinary staff.”

When asked if its job commitments are binding, the spokesperson declined to answer, saying, “We worked closely with Richland Parish and Louisiana Economic Development on mutually beneficial agreements that will support long-term growth in the area.”

Others are not as convinced. “Show me a data center that has that level of employment,” says Logan Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy in Louisiana.

Entergy has argued the new power plants are necessary to satiate the energy need from Meta’s massive hyperscale data center, which will be Meta’s largest data center and potentially the largest data center in the United States. It amounts to a 25 percent increase in Entergy Louisiana’s current load, according to the Alliance for Affordable Energy.  

Entergy requested an exemption from a state law meant to ensure that it develops energy at the lowest cost by issuing a public request for proposals, claiming in its application and testimony that this would slow them down and cause them to lose their contracts with Meta.

Meta has agreed to subsidize the first 15 years of payments for construction of the gas plants, but the plant’s construction is being financed over 30 years. At the 15 year mark, its contract with Entergy ends. At that point, Meta may decide it doesn’t need three gas plants worth of energy because computing power has become more efficient or because its AI products are not profitable enough. Louisiana residents would be stuck with the remaining bill. 

“It's not that they're paying the cost, they're just paying the mortgage for the time that they're under contract,” explained Devi Glick, an electric utility analyst with Synapse Energy.

When asked about the costs for the gas plants, a Meta spokesperson said, “Meta works with our utility partners to ensure we pay for the full costs of the energy service to our data centers.” The spokesperson said that any rate increases will be reviewed by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. These applications, called rate cases, are typically submitted by energy companies based on a broad projection of new infrastructure projects and energy needs.

Meta has technically not finalized its agreement with Entergy but Glick believes the company has already invested enough in the endeavor that it is unlikely to pull out now. Other companies have been reconsidering their gamble on AI data centers: Microsoft reversed course on centers requiring a combined 2 gigawatts of energy in the U.S. and Europe. Meta swept in to take on some of the leases, according to Bloomberg.

And in the short-term, Entergy is asking residential customers to help pay for a new transmission line for the gas plants at a cost of more than $500 million, according to Entergy’s application to Louisiana’s public utility board. In its application, the energy giant said customers’ bills will only rise by $1.66 a month to offset the costs of the transmission lines. Meta, for its part, said it will pay up to $1 million a year into a fund for low-income customers. When asked about the costs of the new transmission line, a Meta spokesperson said,  “Like all other new customers joining the transmission system, one of the required transmission upgrades will provide significant benefits to the broader transmission system. This transmission upgrade is further in distance from the data center, so it was not wholly assigned to Meta.”

When Entergy was questioned in public testimony on whether the new transmission line would need to be built even without Meta’s massive data center, the company declined to answer, saying the question was hypothetical.

Some details of Meta’s contract with Entergy have been made available to groups legally intervening in Entergy’s application, meaning that they can submit testimony or request data from the company. These parties include the Alliance for Affordable Energy, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

But Meta—which will become Entergy’s largest customer by far and whose presence will impact the entire energy grid—is not required to answer questions or divulge any information to the energy board or any other parties. The Alliance for Affordable Energy and Union of Concerned Scientists attempted to make Meta a party to Entergy’s application—which would have required it to share information and submit to questioning—but a judge denied that motion on April 4.

The public utility commissions that approve energy infrastructure in most states are the main democratic lever to assure that data centers don’t negatively impact consumers. But they have no oversight over the tech companies running the data centers or the private companies that build the centers, leaving residential customers, consumer advocates and environmentalists in the dark. This is because they approve the power plants that fuel the data centers but do not have jurisdiction over the data centers themselves. 

“This is kind of a relic of the past where there might be some energy service agreement between some large customer and the utility company, but it wouldn't require a whole new energy facility,” Arbaje said.

A research paper by Ari Peskoe and Eliza Martin published in March looked at 50 regulatory cases involving data centers, and found that tech companies were pushing some of the costs onto utility customers through secret contracts with the utilities. The paper found that utilities were often parroting rhetoric from AI boosting politicians—including President Biden—to suggest that pushing through permitting for AI data center infrastructure is a matter of national importance.

“The implication is that there’s no time to act differently,” the authors wrote.

In written testimony sent to the public service commission, Entergy CEO Phillip May argued that the company had to bypass a legally required  request for proposals and requirement to find the cheapest energy sources for the sake of winning over Meta.

“If a prospective customer is choosing between two locations, and if that customer believes that location A can more quickly bring the facility online than location B, that customer is more likely to choose to build at location A,” he wrote.

Entergy also argues that building new gas plants will in fact lower electricity bills because Meta, as the largest customer for the gas plants, will pay a disproportionate share of energy costs. Naturally, some are skeptical that Entergy would overcharge what will be by far their largest customer to subsidize their residential customers. “They haven't shown any numbers to show how that's possible,” Burke says of this claim. Meta didn’t have a response to this specific claim when asked by 404 Media.

Some details, like how much energy Meta will really need, the details of its hiring in the area and its commitment to renewables are still cloaked in mystery. 

“We can't ask discovery. We can't depose. There's no way for us to understand the agreement between them without [Meta] being at the table,” Burke said.

It’s not just Entergy. Big energy companies in other states are also pushing out costly fossil fuel infrastructure to court data centers and pushing costs onto captive residents. In Kentucky, the energy company that serves the Louisville area is proposing 2 new gas plants for hypothetical data centers that have yet to be contracted by any tech company. The company, PPL Electric Utilities, is also planning to offload the cost of new energy supply onto its residential customers just to become more competitive for data centers. 

“It's one thing if rates go up so that customers can get increased reliability or better service, but customers shouldn't be on the hook to pay for new power plants to power data centers,” Cara Cooper, a coordinator with Kentuckians for Energy Democracy, which has intervened on an application for new gas plants there.

These rate increases don’t take into account the downstream effects on energy; as the supply of materials and fuel are inevitably usurped by large data center load, the cost of energy goes up to compensate, with everyday customers footing the bill, according to Glick with Synapse.

Glick says Entergy’s gas plants may not even be enough to satisfy the energy needs of Meta’s massive data center. In written testimony, Glick said that Entergy will have to either contract with a third party for more energy or build even more plants down the line to fuel Meta’s massive data center. 

To fill the gap, Entergy has not ruled out lengthening the life of some of its coal plants, which it had planned to close in the next few years. The company already pushed back the deactivation date of one of its coal plants from 2028 to 2030.

The increased demand for gas power for data centers has already created a widely-reported bottleneck for gas turbines, the majority of which are built by 3 companies. One of those companies, Siemens Energy, told Politico that turbines are “selling faster than they can increase manufacturing capacity,” which the company attributed to data centers.

Most of the organizations concerned about the situation in Louisiana view Meta’s massive data center as inevitable and are trying to soften its impact by getting Entergy to utilize more renewables and make more concrete economic development promises. 

Andreanecia Morris, with Housing Louisiana, believes the lack of transparency from public utility commissions is a bigger problem than just Meta. “Simply making Meta go away, isn't the point,” Morris says.  “The point has to be that the Public Service Commission is held accountable.”

Burke says Entergy owns less than 200 megawatts of renewable energy in Louisiana, a fraction of the fossil fuels it is proposing to fuel Meta’s center. Entergy was approved by Louisiana’s public utility commission to build out three gigawatts of solar energy last year , but has yet to build any of it.

“They're saying one thing, but they're really putting all of their energy into the other,” Burke says.

New gas plants are hugely troubling for the climate. But ironically, advocates for affordable energy are equally concerned that the plants will lie around disused - with Louisiana residents stuck with the financing for their construction and upkeep. Generative AI has yet to prove its profitability and the computing heavy strategy of American tech companies may prove unnecessary given less resource intensive alternatives coming out of China.

“There's such a real threat in such a nascent industry that what is being built is not what is going to be needed in the long run,” said Burke. “The challenge remains that residential rate payers  in the long run are being asked to finance the risk, and obviously that benefits the utilities, and it really benefits some of the most wealthy companies in the world, But it sure is risky for the folks who are living right next door.”

The Alliance for Affordable Energy expects the commission to make a decision on the plants this fall.

Mercredi 25 juin à 18h30 retrouvez nous chez Matrice, 146 boulevard de Charonne dans le 20e à Paris, pour fêter la première année d’existence de Danslesalgorithmes.net. Avec François-Xavier Petit, directeur de Matrice.io et président de l’association Vecteur, nous reviendrons sur notre ambition et ferons le bilan de la première année d’existence de DLA.

Avec Xavier de la Porte, journaliste au Nouvel Obs et producteur du podcast de France Inter, le Code a changé, nous nous interrogerons pour comprendre de quelle information sur le numérique avons-nous besoin, à l’heure où l’IA vient partout bouleverser sa place.

Venez en discuter avec nous et partager un verre pour fêter notre première bougie.

Inscription requise.

Matrice propose tous les soirs de cette semaine des moments d’échange et de rencontre, via son programme Variations. Découvrez le programme !

Welcome back to the Abstract! 

This week, we’re moving in next to anacondas, so watch your back and lock the henhouse. Then, parenthood tips from wild baboons, the “cognitive debt” of ChatGPT, a spaceflight symphony, and a bizarre galaxy that is finally coming into view. 

When your neighbor is an anaconda

Cosendey, Beatriz Nunes and Pezzuti, Juarez Carlos Brito. 'The myth of the serpent: from the Great Snake to the henhouse.” Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science.

Anacondas are one of the most spectacular animals in South America, inspiring countless  myths and legends. But these iconic boas, which can grow to lengths of 30 feet, are also a pest to local populations in the Amazon basin, where they prey on livestock. 

To better understand these nuanced perceptions of anacondas, researchers interviewed more than 200 residents of communities in the várzea regions of the lower Amazon River about their experiences with the animals. The resulting study is packed with amazing stories and insights about the snakes, which are widely reviled as thieves and feared for their predatory prowess.

“Fear of the anaconda (identified in 44.5% of the reports) is related to the belief that it is a treacherous and sly animal,” said co-authors led by Beatriz Nunes Cosendey of the Mamirauá Sustainable Development Reserve and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti of the Federal University of Pará.

“The interviewees convey that the anaconda is a silent creature that arrives without making any noise, causing them to feel uneasy and always vigilant during fishing…with the fear of having their canoe flooded in case of an attack,” the team added. “Some dwellers even reported being more afraid of an anaconda than of a crocodile because the latter warns when it is about to attack.”

But while anacondas are eerily stealthy, they also have their derpy moments. The snakes often break into chicken coops to feast on the poultry, but then get trapped because their engorged bodies are too big to escape through the same gaps they used to enter.  

“Dwellers expressed frustration at having to invest time and money in raising chickens, and then lose part of their flock overnight,” the team said. “One interviewee even mentioned retrieving a chicken from inside an anaconda’s belly, as it had just been swallowed and was still fresh.”

Overall, the new study presents a captivating portrait of anaconda-human relations, and concludes that “the anaconda has lost its traditional role in folklore as a spiritual and mythological entity, now being perceived in a pragmatic way, primarily as an obstacle to free-range poultry farming.”

Monkeying around with Dad  

Jansen, David et al. “Early-life paternal relationships predict adult female survival in wild baboons.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Coming off of Father’s Day, here is a story about the positive role that dads can play for their daughters—for baboons, as well as humans. A team tracked the lifespans of 216 wild female baboons in Amboseli, Kenya, and found that subjects who received more paternal care had significantly better outcomes than their peers.

“We found that juvenile female baboons who had stronger paternal relationships, or who resided longer with their fathers, led adult lives that were 2–4 years longer than females with weak or short paternal relationships,” said researchers led by David Jansen of the Midwest Center of Excellence for Vector-Borne Disease. “Because survival predicts female fitness, fathers and their daughters may experience selection to engage socially and stay close in daughters’ early lives.”

This all reminds me of that old episode of The Simpsons where Lisa calls Homer a baboon. While Homer was clearly hurt, it turns out that baboons might not be the worst animal-based insult for a daughter to throw at her dad.  

A case for staying ChatGPT-Free

Nataliya, Kosmyna et al. “Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task.” arXiv preprint.

ChatGPT may hinder creativity and learning skills in students who use it to write essays, relative to those who didn’t, according to an exhaustive new preprint study posted on arXiv. This research has yet not been peer-reviewed, and has a relatively small sample size of 54 subjects, but it still contributes to rising concerns about the cognitive toll of AI assistants. 

Researchers led by Nataliya Kosmya of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology divided the subjects — all between 18 and 39 years old — into three groups wrote SAT essays using OpenAI’s ChatGPT (LLM group), Google’s search engine, or with no assistance (dubbed “Brain-only”).

“As demonstrated over the course of 4 months, the LLM group's participants performed worse than their counterparts in the Brain-only group at all levels: neural, linguistic, scoring,” the team said. “The LLM group also fell behind in their ability to quote from the essays they wrote just minutes prior.”

When I asked ChatGPT for its thoughts on the study, it commented that “these results are both interesting and plausible, though they should be interpreted cautiously given the early stage of the research and its limitations.” It later suggested that “cognitive offloading is not always bad.” 

This study is a bop

Berthet, Maximilien et al. “History of the space industry in Asia: A concert in three movements.” Acta Astronautica.

Even scientists can’t resist evocative language now and then—we’re all only human. Case in point: A new study likens the history of Asia’s space industry to “a musical concert” and then really runs with the metaphor.

“The region comprises a diverse patchwork of nations, each contributing different instruments to the regional space development orchestra,” said researchers led by Maximilien Berthet of the University of Tokyo. “Its history consists of three successive movements” starting with “the US and former USSR setting the tone for the global space exploration symphony” and culminating with modern Asian spaceflight as “a fast crescendo in multiple areas of the region driven in part by private initiative.”

Talk about a space opera. The rest of the study provides a comprehensive review of Asian space history, but I cannot wait for the musical adaptation.

Peekaboo! I galax-see you

Kniazev, Alexei and Pustilnik, Simon. “The Peekaboo galaxy: New SALT spectroscopy and implications of archive HST data.” Astronomy & Astrophysics.

In 2001, astronomer Bärbel Koribalski spotted a tiny galaxy peeking out from behind a bright foreground star that had obscured it for decades, earning it the nickname the “Peekaboo Galaxy.” Situated about 22 million light-years from the Milky Way, this strange galaxy is extremely young and metal-poor, resembling the universe’s earliest galaxies.

A new study confirms Peekaboo as “the lowest-metallicity dwarf in the Local Volume,” a group of roughly 500 galaxies within 36 million light-years of Earth.

“This makes the Peekaboo dwarf one of the most intriguing galaxies in the Local Volume,” said co-authors Alexei Kniazev of the South African Astronomical Observatory and Simon Pustilnik of the Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of the Sciences. “It deserves intensive, multi-method study and is expected to significantly advance our understanding of the early universe’s first building blocks.”

Thanks for reading! See you next week.

Update: The original headline for this piece was "Is ChatGPT Rotting Our Brains? New Study Suggests It Does." We've updated the headline to "ChatGPT May Create 'Cognitive Debt,' New Study Finds" to match the terminology used by the researchers.

This is Behind the Blog, where we share our behind-the-scenes thoughts about how a few of our top stories of the week came together. This week, we discuss Deadheads and doxxing sites.

SAM: Anyone reading the site closely this week likely noticed a new name entering the chat. We’re thrilled to welcome Rosie Thomas to the gang for the summer as an editorial intern! 

Rosie was previously a software engineer in the personal finance space. Currently halfway through her master’s degree in journalism, Rosie is interested in social movements, how people change their behaviors in the face of new technologies, and “the infinite factors that influence sentiment and opinions,” in her words. In her program, she’s expanding her skills in investigations, audio production, and field recording. She published her first blog with us on day two, a really interesting (and in 404 style, informatively disturbing) breakdown of a new report that found tens of thousands of camera feeds exposed to the dark web. We’re so excited to see what she does with us this summer! 

This article was produced in collaboration with Court Watch, an independent outlet that unearths overlooked court records. Subscribe to them here.

The FBI has accused a Texas man, James Wesley Burger, of planning an Islamic State-style terrorist attack on a Christian music festival and talking about it on Roblox. The feds caught Burger after another Roblox user overheard his conversations about martyrdom and murder and tipped them off. The feds said that when they searched Burger’s phone they found a list of searches that included “ginger isis member” and “are suicide attacks haram in islam.” 

According to charging documents, a Roblox player contacted federal authorities after seeing another player called “Crazz3pain” talking about killing people. Screenshots from the server and included in the charging documents show Roblox avatars with beards dressed in Keffiyehs talking about dealing a “greivoius [sic] wound upon followers of the cross.”

“The witness observed the user of Crazz3pain state they were willing, as reported by the Witness, to ‘kill Shia Musilms at their mosque,” court records said. “Crazz3pain and another Roblox user[…]continued to make violent statements so the witness left the game.”

The witness stayed off of Roblox for two days and when they returned they saw Crazz3pain say something else that worried them, according to the court filing. “The Witness observed Crazz3pain tell Roblox User 1 to check their message on Discord,” the charging document said. “Roblox User 1 replied on Roblox to Crazz3pain, they should delete the photograph of firearms within the unknown Discord chat, ‘in case it was flagged as suspicious…the firearms should be kept hidden.”

According to the witness, Crazz3pain kept talking about their desire to commit “martyrdom” at a Christian event and that he wanted to “bring humiliation to worshippers of the cross.” The Witness allegedly asked Crazz3pain if the attack would happen at a church service and Crazz3pain told them it would happen at a concert. 

Someone asked Crazz3pain when it would happen. “‘It will be months…Shawwal…April,’” Crazz3pain said. Shawwal is the month after Ramadan in the Islamic calendar. The conversations the witness shared with the FBI happened on January 21 and 23, 2025.

Roblox gave authorities Crazz3pain’s email address, name, physical address, and IP address and it all pointed back to James Wesley Burger. The FBI searched Burger’s home on February 28 and discovered that someone in his family had put on a keylogger on the laptop he used to play Roblox and that they’d captured a lot of what he’d been typing while playing the game. They turned over the records to the feds.

“The safety of our community is among our highest priorities. In this case, we moved swiftly to assist law enforcement’s investigation before any real-world harm could occur and investigated and took action in accordance with our policies. We have a robust set of proactive and preventative safety measures designed to help swiftly detect and remove content that violates our policies," a spokesperson for Roblox told 404 Media. "Our Community Standards explicitly prohibit any content or behavior that depicts, supports, glorifies, or promotes terrorist or extremist organizations in any way. We have dedicated teams focused on proactively identifying and swiftly removing such content, as well as supporting requests from and providing assistance to law enforcement. We also work closely with other platforms and in close collaboration with safety organizations to keep content that violates our policies off our platform, and will continue to diligently enforce our policies.”

Burger’s plan to kill Christians was allegedly captured by the keylogger. “I’ve come to conclude it will befall the 12 of Shawwal aa/And it will be a music festival /Attracting bounties of Christians s/In’shaa’allah we will attain martyrdom /And deal a grevious [sic] wound upon the followers of the Cross /Pray for me and enjoin yourself to martyrdom,” he allegedly typed in Roblox, according to court records.

The FBI then interviewed Burger in his living room and he admitted he used the Crazz3pain account to play Roblox. The feds asked him about his alleged plan to kill Christians at a concert. Burger said it was, at the time, “mostly a heightened emotional response,” according to the court records. 

Burger also said that the details “became exaggerated” but that the goal “hasn’t shifted a bit,” according to the court records. He said he wanted to “[G]et the hell out of the U.S.” And if he can’t, “then, martyrdom or bust.”

He said that his intention with the attack “is something that is meant to or will cause terror,” according to the charging document. When the FBI agent asked if he was a terrorist, Burger said, “I mean, yeah, yeah. By, by the sense and … by my very own definition, yes, I guess, you know, I would be a terrorist.” 

When authorities searched his iPhone, they discovered two notes on the phone that described how to avoid leaving behind DNA and fingerprints at a crime scene. A third note appeared to be a note explaining the attack, meant to be read after it occured.

The list of previous searches on his iPhone included “Which month is april in islam,” “Festivals happening near me,” “are suicide attacks haram in islam,” “ginger isis member,” “lone wolf terrorists isis,” and “can tou kill a woman who foesnt[sic] wear hijab.”

Burger has been charged with making violent threats online and may spend time in a federal prison if convicted. This is not the first time something like this has happened on Roblox. The popular children’s game has been a popular spot for extremist behavior, including Nazis and religious terrorists, for years now. Last year, the DOJ accused a Syrian man living in Albanian of using Roblox to coordinate a group of American teenagers to disrupt public city council Zoom meetings.

C’est une formidable histoire que raconte le Code du numérique. Un livre édité par les Habitant.es des images ASBL et la Cellule pour la réduction des inégalités sociales et de la lutte contre la pauvreté de Bruxelles. Ce livre est le résultat de trois années d’action nées des difficultés qu’ont éprouvé les plus démunis à accéder à leurs droits durant la pandémie. En réaction à la fermeture des guichets d’aide sociale pendant la crise Covid, des militants du secteur social belge ont lancé un groupe de travail pour visibiliser le vécu collectif des souffrances individuelles des plus précaires face au déploiement du numérique, donnant naissance au Comité humain du numérique. “La digitalisation de la société n’a pas entraîné une amélioration généralisée des compétences numériques”, rappelle le Comité en s’appuyant sur le baromètre de l’inclusion numérique belge. 

Le Comité humain du numérique s’installe alors dans les quartiers et, avec les habitants, décide d’écrire un Code de loi : “Puisque l’Etat ne nous protège pas, écrivons les lois à sa place”. Rejoints par d’autres collectifs, le Comité humain se met à écrire la loi avec les habitants, depuis les témoignages de ceux qui n’arrivent pas à accomplir les démarches qu’on leur demande. Manifestations, séances d’écriture publique, délibérations publiques, parlement de rues… Le Comité implique les habitants, notamment contre l’ordonnance Bruxelles numérique qui veut rendre obligatoire les services publics digitalisés, sans garantir le maintien des guichets humains et rejoint la mobilisation coordonnée par le collectif Lire et écrire et plus de 200 associations. Devant le Parlement belge, le Comité humain organise des parlements humains de rue pour réclamer des guichets ! Suite à leur action, l’ordonnance Bruxelles numérique est amendée d’un nouvel article qui détermine des obligations pour les administrations à prévoir un accès par guichet, téléphone et voie postale – mais prévoit néanmoins la possibilité de s’en passer si les charges sont disproportionnées. Le collectif œuvre désormais à attaquer l’ordonnance devant la cour constitutionnelle belge et continue sa lutte pour refuser l’obligation au numérique.

Mais l’essentiel n’est pas que dans la victoire à venir, mais bien dans la force de la mobilisation et des propositions réalisées. Le Code du numérique ce sont d’abord 8 articles de lois amendés et discutés par des centaines d’habitants. L’article 1er rappelle que tous les services publics doivent proposer un accompagnement humain. Il rappelle que “si un robot ne nous comprend pas, ce n’est pas nous le problème”. Que cet accès doit être sans condition, c’est-à-dire gratuit, avec des temps d’attente limités, “sans rendez-vous”, sans obligation de maîtrise de la langue ou de l’écriture. Que l’accompagnement humain est un droit. Que ce coût ne doit pas reposer sur d’autres, que ce soit les proches, les enfants, les aidants ou les travailleurs sociaux. Que l’Etat doit veiller à cette accessibilité humaine et qu’il doit proposer aux citoyen.nes des procédures gratuites pour faire valoir leurs droits. L’article 2 rappelle que c’est à l’Etat d’évaluer l’utilité et l’efficacité des nouveaux outils numériques qu’il met en place : qu’ils doivent aider les citoyens et pas seulement les contrôler. Que cette évaluation doit associer les utilisateurs, que leurs impacts doivent être contrôlés, limités et non centralisés. L’article 3 rappelle que l’Etat doit créer ses propres outils et que les démarches administratives ne peuvent pas impliquer le recours à un service privé. L’article 4 suggère de bâtir des alternatives aux solutions numériques qu’on nous impose. L’article 5 suggère que leur utilisation doit être contrainte et restreinte, notamment selon les lieux ou les âges et souligne que l’apprentissage comme l’interaction entre parents et écoles ne peut être conditionnée par des outils numériques. L’article 6 en appelle à la création d’un label rendant visible le niveau de dangerosité physique ou mentale des outils, avec des possibilités de signalement simples. L’article 7 milite pour un droit à pouvoir se déconnecter sans se justifier. Enfin, l’article 8 plaide pour une protection des compétences humaines et de la rencontre physique, notamment dans le cadre de l’accès aux soins. “Tout employé.e/étudiant.e/patient.e/client.e a le droit d’exiger de rencontrer en face à face un responsable sur un lieu physique”. L’introduction de nouveaux outils numériques doit être développée et validée par ceux qui devront l’utiliser.

Derrière ces propositions de lois, simples, essentielles… la vraie richesse du travail du Comité humain du numérique est de proposer, de donner à lire un recueil de paroles qu’on n’entend nulle part. Les propos des habitants, des individus confrontés à la transformation numérique du monde, permettent de faire entendre des voix qui ne parviennent plus aux oreilles des concepteurs du monde. Des paroles simples et fortes. Georges : “Ce que je demanderai aux politiciens ? C’est de nous protéger de tout ça.” Anthony : “Internet devait être une plateforme et pas une vie secondaire”. Nora : “En tant qu’assistante sociale, le numérique me surresponsabilise et rend le public surdépendant de moi. Je suis le dernier maillon de la chaîne, l’échec social passe par moi. Je le matérialise”. Amina : “Je ne sais pas lire, je ne sais pas écrire. Mais je sais parler. Le numérique ne me laisse pas parler”. Aïssatou : “Maintenant tout est trop difficile. S’entraider c’est la vie. Avec le numérique il n’y a plus personne pour aider”. Khalid : “Qu’est-ce qui se passe pour les personnes qui n’ont pas d’enfant pour les aider ?” Elise : “Comment s’assurer qu’il n’y a pas de discrimination ?” Roger : “Le numérique est utilisé pour décourager les démarches”, puisque bien souvent on ne peut même pas répondre à un courriel. AnaÎs : “Il y a plein d’infos qui ne sont pas numérisées, car elles n’entrent pas dans les cases. La passation d’information est devenue très difficile”… Le Code du numérique nous “redonne à entendre les discours provenant des classes populaires”, comme nous y invitait le chercheur David Gaborieau dans le rapport “IA : la voie citoyenne”.

Le Code du numérique nous rappelle que désormais, les institutions s’invitent chez nous, dans nos salons, dans nos lits. Il rappelle que l’accompagnement humain sera toujours nécessaire pour presque la moitié de la population. Que “l’aide au remplissage” des documents administratifs ne peut pas s’arrêter derrière un téléphone qui sonne dans le vide. Que “la digitalisation des services publics et privés donne encore plus de pouvoir aux institutions face aux individus”. Que beaucoup de situations n’entreront jamais dans les “cases” prédéfinies.Le Code du numérique n’est pas qu’une expérience spécifique et située, rappellent ses porteurs. “Il est là pour que vous vous en empariez”. Les lois proposées sont faites pour être débattues, modifiées, amendées, adaptées. Les auteurs ont créé un jeu de cartes pour permettre à d’autres d’organiser un Parlement humain du numérique. Il détaille également comment créer son propre Comité humain, invite à écrire ses propres lois depuis le recueil de témoignages des usagers, en ouvrant le débat, en écrivant soi-même son Code, ses lois, à organiser son parlement et documente nombre de méthodes et d’outils pour interpeller, mobiliser, intégrer les contributions. Bref, il invite à ce que bien d’autres Code du numérique essaiment, en Belgique et bien au-delà ! A chacun de s’en emparer.

Cet article a été publié originellement pour la lettre d’information du Conseil national du numérique du 23 mai 2025.

Scientists have directly confirmed the location of the universe's “missing” matter for the first time, reports a study published on Monday in Nature Astronomy. 

The idea that the universe must contain normal, or “baryonic,” matter that we can’t seem to find goes back to the birth of modern cosmological models. Now, a team has revealed that about 76 percent of all baryons—the ordinary particles that make up planets and stars—exist as gas hidden in the dark expanses between galaxies, known as the intergalactic medium. Fast radio bursts (FRBs), transient signals with elusive origins, illuminated the missing baryons, according to the researchers. As a bonus, they also identified the most distant FRB ever recorded, at 9.1 billion light years away, in the study. 

“Measuring the ‘missing baryons’ with Fast Radio Bursts has been a major long-sought milestone for radio astronomers,” said Liam Connor, an astronomer at the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian who led the study, in an email. “Until recently, we didn’t have a large-enough sample of bursts to make strong statements about where this ordinary matter was hiding.” 

Under the leadership of Caltech professor Vikram Ravi, the researchers constructed the DSA-110 radio telescope—an array of over 100 dishes in the California desert—to achieve this longstanding milestone. “We built up the largest and most distant collection of localized FRBs (meaning we know their exact host galaxy and distance),” Connor explained. “This data sample, plus new algorithms, allowed us to finally make a complete baryon pie chart. There are no longer any missing wedges.”

Baryons are the building blocks of the familiar matter that makes up our bodies, stars, and galaxies, in contrast to dark matter, a mysterious substance that accounts for the vast majority of the universe’s mass. Cosmological models predict that there is much more baryonic matter than we can see in stars and galaxies, which has spurred astronomers into a decades-long search for the “missing baryons” in space. 

Scientists have long assumed that most of this missing matter exists in the form of ionized gas in the IGM, but FRBs have opened a new window into these dark reaches, which can be difficult to explore with conventional observatories. 

“FRBs complement and improve on past methods by their sensitivity to all the ionized gas in the Universe,” Connor said. “Past methods, which were highly informative but somewhat incomplete, could only measure hot gas near galaxies or clusters of galaxies. There was no probe that could measure the lion’s share of ordinary matter in the Universe, which it turns out is in the intergalactic medium.”

Since the first FRB was detected in 2007, thousands of similar events have been discovered, though astronomers still aren't sure what causes them. Characterized by extremely energetic radio waves that last for mere milliseconds, the bursts typically originate millions or billions of light years from our galaxy. Some repeat, and some do not. Scientists think these pyrotechnic events are fueled by massive compact objects, like neutron stars, but their exact nature and origins remain unclear.

Connor and his colleagues studied a sample of 60 FRB observations that spanned from about 12 million light years away from Earth all the way to a new record holder for distance: FRB 20230521B, located 9.1 billion light years away. With the help of these cosmic searchlights, the team was able to make a new precise measurement of the density of baryonic matter across the cosmic web, which is a network of large-scale structures that spans the universe. The results matched up with cosmological predictions that most of the missing baryons would be blown out into the IGM by “feedback” generated within galaxies. About 15 percent is present in structures that surround galaxies, called halos, and a small remainder makes up stars and other celestial bodies.

“It really felt like I was going in blind without a strong prior either way,” Connor said. “If all of the missing baryons were hiding in galaxy halos and the IGM were gas-poor, that would be surprising in its own way. If, as we discovered, the baryons had mostly been blown into the space between galaxies, that would also be remarkable because that would require strong astrophysical feedback and violent processes during galaxy formation.”

“Now, looking back on the result, it’s kind of satisfying that our data agrees with modern cosmological simulations with strong ‘feedback’ and agrees with the early Universe values of the total abundance of normal matter,” he continued. “Sometimes it’s nice to have some concordance.” 

The new measurement might alleviate the so-called sigma-8 tension, which is a discrepancy between the overall “clumpiness” of matter in the universe when measured using the cosmic microwave background, which is the oldest light in the cosmos, compared with using modern maps of galaxies and clusters.

“One explanation for this disagreement is that our standard model of cosmology is broken, and we need exotic new physics,” Connor said. “Another explanation is that today’s Universe appears smooth because the baryons have been sloshed around by feedback.” 

“Our FRB measurement suggests the baryon cosmic web is relatively smooth, homogenized by astrophysical processes in galaxies (feedback),” he continued. “This would explain the S8 tension without exotic new physics. If that’s the case, then I think the broader lesson is that we really need to pin down these pesky baryons, which have previously been very difficult to measure directly.”

To that end, Connor is optimistic that more answers to these cosmic riddles are coming down the pike. 

“The future is looking bright for the field of FRB cosmology,” he said. “We are in the process of building enormous radio telescope arrays that could find tens of thousands of localized FRBs each year,” including the upcoming DSA-2000.

“My colleagues and I think of our work as baby steps towards the bigger goal of fully mapping the ordinary, baryonic matter throughout the whole Universe,” he concluded. 

A report from a cybersecurity company last week found that over 40,000 unsecured cameras—including CCTV and security cameras on public transportation, in hospitals, on internet-connected bird feeders and on ATMs—are exposed online worldwide. 

Cybersecurity risk intelligence company BitSight was able to access and download content from thousands of internet-connected systems, including domestic and commercial webcams, baby monitors, office security, and pet cams. They also found content from these cameras on locations on the dark web where people share and sell access to their live feeds. “The most concerning examples found were cameras in hospitals or clinics monitoring patients, posing a significant privacy risk due to the highly sensitive nature of the footage,” said João Cruz, Principal Security Research Scientist for the team that produced the report.

The company wrote in a press release that it “doesn’t take elite hacking to access these cameras; in most cases, a regular web browser and a curious mind are all it takes, meaning that 40,000 figure is probably just the tip of the iceberg.” 

Depending on the type of login protocol that the cameras were using, the researchers were able to access footage or individual real-time screenshots. Against a background of increasing surveillance by law enforcement and ICE, there is clear potential for abuse of unknowingly open cameras. 

Traffic Camera ‘Selfie’ Creator Holds Cease and Desist Letter in Front of Traffic Cam

Traffic Cam Photobooth lets you take a capture from NYC surveillance camera. The city’s Department of Transportation does not like that.

404 MediaSamantha Cole

“Knowing the real number is practically impossible due to the insanely high number of camera brands and models existent in the market,” said Cruz, “each of them with different ways to check if it’s exposed and if it’s possible to get access to the live footage.”

The report outlines more obvious risks, from tracking the behavioral patterns and real-time status of when people are in their homes in order to plan a burglary, to “shoulder surfing,” or stealing data by observing someone logging in to a computer in offices. The report also found cameras in stores, gyms, laundromats, and construction sites, meaning that exposed cameras are monitoring people in their daily lives. The geographic data provided by the camera’s IP addresses, combined with commercially available facial-recognition systems, could prove dangerous for individuals working in or using those businesses.

You can find out if your camera has been exposed using a site like Shodan.io, a search engine which scans for devices connected to the internet, or by trying to access your camera from a device logged in to a different network. Users should also check the documentation provided by the manufacturer, rather than just plugging in a camera right away, to minimize vulnerabilities, and make sure that they set their own password on any IoT-connected device. 

This is because many brands use default logins for their products, and these logins are easily findable online. The BitSight report didn’t try to hack into these kinds of cameras, or try to brute-force any passwords, but, “if we did so, we firmly believe that the number would be higher,” said Cruz. Older camera systems with deprecated and unmaintained software are more susceptible to being hacked in this way; one somewhat brighter spot is that these “digital ghost ships” seem to be decreasing in number as the oldest and least secure among them are replaced or fail completely. 

Unsecured cameras attract hackers and malicious actors, and the risks can go beyond the embarrassing, personal, or even individual. In March this year, the hacking group Akira successfully compromised an organisation using an unsecured webcam, after a first attack attempt was effectively prevented by cybersecurity protocols. In 2024, the Ukrainian government asked citizens to turn off all broadcasting cameras, after Russian agents hacked into webcams at a condo association and a car park. They altered the direction of the cameras to point toward nearby infrastructure and used the footage in planning strikes. Ukraine blocked the operation of 10,000 internet-connected digital security cameras in order to prevent further information leaks, and a May 2025 report from the Joint Cybersecurity Advisory described continued attacks from Russian espionage units on private and municipal cameras to track materials entering Ukraine.

As Israel and Iran trade blows in a quickly escalating conflict that risks engulfing the rest of the region as well as a more direct confrontation between Iran and the U.S., social media is being flooded with AI-generated media that claims to show the devastation, but is fake.

The fake videos and images show how generative AI has already become a staple of modern conflict. On one end, AI-generated content of unknown origin is filling the void created by state-sanctioned media blackouts with misinformation, and on the other end, the leaders of these countries are sharing AI-generated slop to spread the oldest forms of xenophobia and propaganda.

If you want to follow a war as it’s happening, it’s easier than ever. Telegram channels post live streams of bombing raids as they happen and much of the footage trickles up to X, TikTok, and other social media platforms. There’s more footage of conflict than there’s ever been, but a lot of it is fake.

A few days ago, Iranian news outlets reported that Iran’s military had shot down three F-35s. Israel denied it happened. As the claim spread so did supposed images of the downed jet. In one, a massive version of the jet smolders on the ground next to a town. The cockpit dwarfs the nearby buildings and tiny people mill around the downed jet like Lilliputians surrounding Gulliver.

It’s a fake, an obvious one, but thousands of people shared it online. Another image of the supposedly downed jet showed it crashed in a field somewhere in the middle of the night. Its wings were gone and its afterburner still glowed hot. This was also a fake.

AI slop is not the sole domain of anonymous amateur and professional propagandists. The leaders of both Iran and Israel are doing it too. The Supreme Leader of Iran is posting AI-generated missile launches on his X account, a match for similar grotesques on the account of Israel’s Minister of Defense.

New tools like Google’s Veo 3 make AI-generated videos more realistic than ever. Iranian news outlet Tehran Times shared a video to X that it said captured “the moment an Iranian missile hit a building in Bat Yam, southern Tel Aviv.” The video was fake. In another that appeared to come from a TV news spot, a massive missile moved down a long concrete hallway. It’s also clearly AI-generated, and still shows the watermark in the bottom right corner for Veo.

After Iran launched a strike on Israel, Tehran Times shared footage of what it claimed was “Doomsday in Tel Aviv.” A drone shot rotated through scenes of destroyed buildings and piles of rubble. Like the other videos, it was an AI generated fake that appeared on both a Telegram account and TikTok channel named “3amelyonn.”

In Arabic, 3amelyonn’s TikTok channel calls itself “Artificial Intelligence Resistance” but has no such label on Telegram. It’s been posting on Telegram since 2023 and its first TikTok video appeared in April of 2025, of an AI-generated tour through Lebanon, showing its various cities as smoking ruins. It’s full of the quivering lines and other hallucinations typical of early AI video.

But 3amelyonn’s videos a month later are more convincing. A video posted on June 5, labeled as Ben Gurion Airport, shows bombed out buildings and destroyed airplanes. It’s been viewed more than 2 million times. The video of a destroyed Tel Aviv, the one that made it on to Tehran Times, has been viewed more than 11 million times and was posted on May 27, weeks before the current conflict.

Hany Farid, a UC Berkeley professor and founder of GetReal, a synthetic media detection company, has been collecting these fake videos and debunking them. 

“In just the last 12 hours, we at GetReal have been seeing a slew of fake videos surrounding the recent conflict between Israel and Iran. We have been able to link each of these visually compelling videos to Veo 3,” he said in a post on LinkedIn. “It is no surprise that as generative-AI tools continue to improve in photo-realism, they are being misused to spread misinformation and sow confusion.”

The spread of AI-generated media about this conflict appears to be particularly bad because both Iran and Israel are asking their citizens not to share media of destruction, which may help the other side with its targeting for future attacks. On Saturday, for example, the Israel Defense Force asked people not to “publish and share the location or documentation of strikes. The enemy follows these documentations in order to improve its targeting abilities. Be responsible—do not share locations on the web!” Users on social media then fill this vacuum with AI-generated media.

“The casualty in this AI war [is] the truth,” Farid told 404 Media. “By muddying the waters with AI slop, any side can now claim that any other videos showing, for example, a successful strike or human rights violations are fake. Finding the truth at times of conflict has always been difficult, and now in the age of AI and social media, it is even more difficult.”

“We're committed to developing AI responsibly and we have clear policies to protect users from harm and governing the use of our AI tools,” a Google spokesperson told 404 Media. “Any content generated with Google AI has a SynthID watermark embedded and we add a visible watermark to Veo videos too.”

Farid and his team used SynthID to identify the fake videos “alongside other forensic techniques that we have developed over at GetReal,” he said. But checking a video for a SynthID watermark, which is visually imperceptible, requires someone to take the time to download the video and upload it to a separate website. Casual social media scrollers are not taking the time to verify a video they’re seeing by sending it to the SynthID website.

One distinguishing feature of 3amelyonn and others’ videos of viral AI slop about the conflict is that the destruction is confined to buildings. There are no humans and no blood in 3amelyonn’s  aerial shots of destruction, which are more likely to get blocked both by AI image and video generators as well as the social media platforms where these creations are shared. If a human does appear, they’re as observers like in the F-35 picture or milling soldiers like the tunnel video. Seeing a soldier in active combat or a wounded person is rare.

There’s no shortage of real, horrifying footage from Gaza and other conflicts around the world. AI war spam, however, is almost always bloodless. A year ago, the AI-generated image “All Eyes on Raffah” garnered tens of millions of views. It was created by a Facebook group with the goal of “Making AI prosper.”

This week we start with Joseph’s article about the U.S’s major airlines selling customers’ flight information to Customs and Border Protection and then telling the agency to not reveal where the data came from. After the break, Emanuel tells us how AI scraping bots are breaking open libraries, archives, and museums. In the subscribers-only section, Jason explains the casual surveillance relationship between ICE and local cops, according to emails he got.

Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.

• Airlines Don't Want You to Know They Sold Your Flight Data to DHS
• AI Scraping Bots Are Breaking Open Libraries, Archives, and Museums
• Emails Reveal the Casual Surveillance Alliance Between ICE and Local Police

Dans sa dernière newsletter, Algorithm Watch revient sur une étude danoise qui a observé les effets des chatbots sur le travail auprès de 25 000 travailleurs provenant de 11 professions différentes où des chatbots sont couramment utilisés (développeurs, journalistes, professionnels RH, enseignants…). Si ces travailleurs ont noté que travailler avec les chatbots leur permettait de gagner du temps, d’améliorer la qualité de leur travail, le gain de temps s’est avéré modeste, représentant seulement 2,8% du total des heures de travail. La question des gains de productivité de l’IA générative dépend pour l’instant beaucoup des études réalisées, des tâches et des outils. Les gains de temps varient certes un peu selon les profils de postes (plus élevés pour les professions du marketing (6,8%) que pour les enseignants (0,2%)), mais ils restent bien modestes.”Sans flux de travail modifiés ni incitations supplémentaires, la plupart des effets positifs sont vains”. 

Algorithm Watch se demande si les chatbots ne sont pas des outils de travail improductifs. Il semblerait plutôt que, comme toute transformation, elle nécessite surtout des adaptations organisationnelles ad hoc pour en développer les effets.

A California police department searched AI-enabled, automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras in relation to an “immigration protest,” according to internal police data obtained by 404 Media. The data also shows that police departments and sheriff offices around the country have repeatedly tapped into the cameras inside California, made by a company called Flock, on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), digitally reaching into the sanctuary state in a data sharing practice that experts say is illegal. 

Flock allows participating agencies to search not only cameras in their jurisdiction or state, but nationwide, meaning that local police that may work directly with ICE on immigration enforcement are able to search cameras inside California or other states. But this data sharing is only possible because California agencies have opted-in to sharing it with agencies in other states, making them legally responsible for the data sharing. 

The news raises questions about whether California agencies are enforcing the law on their own data sharing practices, threatens to undermine the state’s perception as a sanctuary state, and highlights the sort of surveillance or investigative tools law enforcement may deploy at immigration related protests. Over the weekend, millions of people attended No Kings protests across the U.S. 404 Media’s findings come after we revealed police were searching cameras in Illinois on behalf of ICE, and then Cal Matters found local law enforcement agencies in California were searching cameras for ICE too.

I was sick last week, so I did not have time to write about the Discover Tab in Meta’s AI app, which, as Katie Notopoulos of Business Insider has pointed out, is the “saddest place on the internet.” Many very good articles have already been written about it, and yet, I cannot allow its existence to go unremarked upon in the pages of 404 Media. 

If you somehow missed this while millions of people were protesting in the streets, state politicians were being assassinated, war was breaking out between Israel and Iran, the military was deployed to the streets of Los Angeles, and a Coinbase-sponsored military parade rolled past dozens of passersby in Washington, D.C., here is what the “Discover” tab is: The Meta AI app, which is the company’s competitor to the ChatGPT app, is posting users’ conversations on a public “Discover” page where anyone can see the things that users are asking Meta’s chatbot to make for them. 

This includes various innocuous image and video generations that have become completely inescapable on all of Meta’s platforms (things like “egg with one eye made of black and gold,” “adorable Maltese dog becomes a heroic lifeguard,” “one second for God to step into your mind”), but it also includes entire chatbot conversations where users are seemingly unknowingly leaking a mix of embarrassing, personal, and sensitive details about their lives onto a public platform owned by Mark Zuckerberg. In almost all cases, I was able to trivially tie these chats to actual, real people because the app uses your Instagram or Facebook account as your login.

On Monday, federal and state authorities charged Vance Boelter with the murders of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband. An affidavit written by an FBI Special Agent, published here by MSNBC, includes photos of a notepad found in Boelter’s SUV which included a long list of people search sites, some of which make it very easy for essentially anyone to find the address and other personal information of someone else in the U.S. The SUV contained other notebooks and some pages included the names of more than 45 Minnesota state and federal public officials, including Hortman, the affidavit says. Hortman’s home address was listed next to her name, it adds.

People search sites can present a risk to citizen’s privacy, and, depending on the context, physical safety. They aggregate data from property records, social media, marriage licenses, and other places and make it accessible to even those with no tech savvy. Some are free, some are paid, and some require a user to tick a box confirming they’re only using the data for certain permitted use cases. 

Congress has known about the risk of data for decades. In 1994 lawmakers created the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) after a stalker hired a private investigator who then obtained the address of actress Rebecca Schaeffer from a DMV. The stalker then murdered Schaeffer. With people search sites, though, lawmakers have been largely motionless, despite them existing for years, on the open web, accessible by a Google search and sometimes even promoted with Google advertisements.

Senator Ron Wyden said in a statement “The accused Minneapolis assassin allegedly used data brokers as a key part of his plot to track down and murder Democratic lawmakers. Congress doesn't need any more proof that people are being killed based on data for sale to anyone with a credit card. Every single American's safety is at risk until Congress cracks down on this sleazy industry.”

This notepad does not necessarily mean that Boelter used these specific sites to find Hortman’s or other officials’ addresses. As the New York Times noted, Hortman’s address was on her campaign website, and Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman, who Boelter allegedly shot along with Hoffman’s wife, listed his address on his official legislative webpage.

The sites’ inclusion shows they are of high interest to a person who allegedly murdered and targeted multiple officials and their families in an act of political violence. Next to some of the people search site names, Boelter appears to have put a star or tick.

Those people search sites are:

• Intelius [this entry has a tick next to it]
• BeenVerified.com
• Ownerly.com [the note “address needed” is added next to this site on the list]
• USSearch.com [this entry has a tick next to it]
• NeighborWho [the note “address needed” is added next to this site on the list]
• PeopleFinders.com [this entry has a star next to it]
• PeopleLooker [this entry has a tick next to it]
• Spokeo [this entry has a tick next to it; another entry notes “not free”]
• TruePeopleSearch.com
• TruthFinder.com
• Information.com
• Pipl [a note says “not free” next to this entry]
• Addresses.com
• Yellowpages.com

A spokesperson for Atlas, a company that is suing a variety of people search sites, said “Tragedies like this might be prevented if data brokers simply complied with state and federal privacy laws. Our company has been in court for more than 15 months litigating against each of the eleven data brokers identified in the alleged shooter’s writings, seeking to hold them accountable for refusing to comply with New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law which seeks to protect the home addresses of judges, prosecutors, law enforcement and their families. This industry’s purposeful refusal to comply with privacy laws has and continues to endanger thousands of public servants and their families.” 

404 Media has repeatedly reported on how data can be weaponized against people. We found violent criminals and hackers were able to dox nearly anyone in the U.S. for $15, using bots that were based on data people had given as part of opening credit cards. In 2023 Verizon gave sensitive information, including an address on file, of one of its customers to her stalker, who then drove to the address armed with a knife.

404 Media was able to contact most of the people search sites for comment. None responded.

Update: this piece has been updated to include a statement from Atlas. An earlier version of this piece accidentally published a version with a different structure; this correct version includes more information about the DPPA.

AI bots that scrape the internet for training data are hammering the servers of libraries, archives, museums, and galleries, and are in some cases knocking their collections offline, according to a new survey published today. While the impact of AI bots on open collections has been reported anecdotally, the survey is the first attempt at measuring the problem, which in the worst cases can make valuable, public resources unavailable to humans because the servers they’re hosted on are being swamped by bots scraping the internet for AI training data. 

« J’aimerais vous confronter à un problème de calcul difficile », attaque Albert Moukheiber sur la scène de la conférence USI 2025. « Dans les sciences cognitives, on est confronté à un problème qu’on n’arrive pas à résoudre : la subjectivité ! » 

Le docteur en neuroscience et psychologue clinicien, auteur de Votre cerveau vous joue des tours (Allary éditions 2019) et de Neuromania (Allary éditions, 2024), commence par faire un rapide historique de ce qu’on sait sur le cerveau. 

Où est le neurone ?

« Contrairement à d’autres organes, un cerveau mort n’a rien à dire sur son fonctionnement. Et pendant très longtemps, nous n’avons pas eu d’instruments pour comprendre un cerveau ». En fait, les technologies permettant d’ausculter le cerveau, de cartographier son activité, sont assez récentes et demeurent bien peu précises. Pour cela, il faut être capable de mesurer son activité, de voir où se font les afflux d’énergie et l’activité chimique. C’est seulement assez récemment, depuis les années 1990 surtout, qu’on a développé des technologies pour étudier cette activité, avec les électro-encéphalogrammes, puis avec l’imagerie par résonance magnétique (IRM) structurelle et surtout fonctionnelle. L’IRM fonctionnelle est celle que les médecins vous prescrivent. Elle mesure la matière cérébrale permettant de créer une image en noir et blanc pour identifier des maladies, des lésions, des tumeurs. Mais elle ne dit rien de l’activité neuronale. Seule l’IRM fonctionnelle observe l’activité, mais il faut comprendre que les images que nous en produisons sont peu précises et demeurent probabilistes. Les images de l’IRMf font apparaître des couleurs sur des zones en activité, mais ces couleurs ne désignent pas nécessairement une activité forte de ces zones, ni que le reste du cerveau est inactif. L’IRMf tente de montrer que certaines zones sont plus actives que d’autres parce qu’elles sont plus alimentées en oxygène et en sang. L’IRMf fonctionne par soustraction des images passées. Le patient dont on mesure l’activité cérébrale est invité à faire une tâche en limitant au maximum toute autre activité que celle demandée et les scientifiques comparent  ces images à des précédentes pour déterminer quelles zones sont affectées quand vous fermez le poing par exemple. « On applique des calculs de probabilité aux soustractions pour tenter d’isoler un signal dans un océan de bruits », précise Moukheiber dans Neuromania. L’IRMf n’est donc pas un enregistrement direct de l’activation cérébrale pour une tâche donnée, mais « une reconstruction a posteriori de la probabilité qu’une aire soit impliquée dans cette tâche ». En fait, les couleurs indiquent des probabilités. « Ces couleurs n’indiquent donc pas une intensité d’activité, mais une probabilité d’implication ». Enfin, les mesures que nous réalisons n’ont rien de précis, rappelle le chercheur. La précision de l’IRMf est le voxel, qui contient environ 5,5 millions de neurones ! Ensuite, l’IRMf capture le taux d’oxygène, alors que la circulation sanguine est bien plus lente que les échanges chimiques de nos neurones. Enfin, le traitement de données est particulièrement complexe. Une étude a chargé plusieurs équipes d’analyser un même ensemble de données d’IRMf et n’a pas conduit aux mêmes résultats selon les équipes. Bref, pour le dire simplement, le neurone est l’unité de base de compréhension de notre cerveau, mais nos outils ne nous permettent pas de le mesurer. Il faut dire qu’il n’est pas non plus le bon niveau explicatif. Les explications établies à partir d’images issues de l’IRMf nous donnent donc plus une illusion de connaissance réelle qu’autre chose. D’où l’enjeu à prendre les résultats de nombre d’études qui s’appuient sur ces images avec beaucoup de recul. « On peut faire dire beaucoup de choses à l’imagerie cérébrale » et c’est assurément ce qui explique qu’elle soit si utilisée.

Les données ne suffisent pas

Dans les années 50-60, le courant de la cybernétique pensait le cerveau comme un organe de traitement de l’information, qu’on devrait étudier comme d’autres machines. C’est la naissance de la neuroscience computationnelle qui tente de modéliser le cerveau à l’image des machines. Outre les travaux de John von Neumann, Claude Shannon prolonge ces idées d’une théorie de l’information qui va permettre de créer des « neurones artificiels », qui ne portent ce nom que parce qu’ils ont été créés pour fonctionner sur le modèle d’un neurone. En 1957, le Perceptron de Frank Rosenblatt est considéré comme la première machine à utiliser un réseau neuronal artificiel. Mais on a bien plus appliqué le lexique du cerveau aux ordinateurs qu’autre chose, rappelle Albert Moukheiber. 

Aujourd’hui, l’Intelligence artificielle et ses « réseaux de neurones » n’a plus rien à voir avec la façon dont fonctionne le cerveau, mais les neurosciences computationnelles, elles continuent, notamment pour aider à faire des prothèses adaptées comme les BCI, Brain Computer Interfaces. 

Désormais, faire de la science consiste à essayer de comprendre comment fonctionne le monde naturel depuis un modèle. Jusqu’à récemment, on pensait qu’il fallait des théories pour savoir quoi faire des données, mais depuis l’avènement des traitements probabilistes et du Big Data, les modèles théoriques sont devenus inutiles, comme l’expliquait Chris Anderson dans The End of Theory en 2008. En 2017, des chercheurs se sont tout de même demandé si l’on pouvait renverser l’analogie cerveau-ordinateur en tentant de comprendre le fonctionnement d’un microprocesseur depuis les outils des neurosciences. Malgré l’arsenal d’outils à leur disposition, les chercheurs qui s’y sont essayé ont été incapables de produire un modèle de son fonctionnement. Cela nous montre que comprendre un fonctionnement ne nécessite pas seulement des informations techniques ou des données, mais avant tout des concepts pour les organiser. En fait, avoir accès à une quantité illimitée de données ne suffit pas à comprendre ni le processeur ni le cerveau. En 1974, le philosophe des sciences, Thomas Nagel, avait proposé une expérience de pensée avec son article « Quel effet ça fait d’être une chauve-souris ? ». Même si l’on connaissait tout d’une chauve-souris, on ne pourra jamais savoir ce que ça fait d’être une chauve-souris. Cela signifie qu’on ne peut jamais atteindre la vie intérieure d’autrui. Que la subjectivité des autres nous échappe toujours. C’est là le difficile problème de la conscience. 

La subjectivité nous échappe

Une émotion désigne trois choses distinctes, rappelle Albert Moukheiber. C’est un état biologique qu’on peut tenter d’objectiver en trouvant des modalités de mesure, comme le tonus musculaire. C’est un concept culturel qui a des ancrages et valeurs très différentes d’une culture l’autre. Mais c’est aussi et d’abord un ressenti subjectif. Ainsi, par exemple, le fait de se sentir triste n’est pas mesurable. « On peut parfaitement comprendre le cortex moteur et visuel, mais on ne comprend pas nécessairement ce qu’éprouve le narrateur de Proust quand il mange la fameuse madeleine. Dix personnes peuvent être émues par un même coucher de soleil, mais sont-elles émues de la même manière ? » 

Notre réductionnisme objectivant est là confronté à des situations qu’il est difficile de mesurer. Ce qui n’est pas sans poser problèmes, notamment dans le monde de l’entreprise comme dans celui de la santé mentale. 

Le monde de l’entreprise a créé d’innombrables indicateurs pour tenter de mesurer la performance des salariés et collaborateurs. Il n’est pas le seul, s’amuse le chercheur sur scène. Les notes des étudiants leurs rappellent que le but est de réussir les examens plus que d’apprendre. C’est la logique de la loi de Goodhart : quand la mesure devient la cible, elle n’est plus une bonne mesure. Pour obtenir des bonus financiers liés au nombre d’opérations réussies, les chirurgiens réalisent bien plus d’opérations faciles que de compliquées. Quand on mesure les humains, ils ont tendance à modifier leur comportement pour se conformer à la mesure, ce qui n’est pas sans effets rebond, à l’image du célèbre effet cobra, où le régime colonial britannique offrit une prime aux habitants de Delhi qui rapporteraient des cobras morts pour les éradiquer, mais qui a poussé à leur démultiplication pour toucher la prime. En entreprises, nombre de mesures réalisées perdent ainsi très vite de leur effectivité. Moukheiber rappelle que les innombrables tests de personnalité ne valent pas mieux qu’un horoscope. L’un des tests le plus utilisé reste le MBTI qui a été développé dans les années 30 par des personnes sans aucune formation en psychologie. Non seulement ces tests n’ont aucun cadre théorique (voir ce que nous en disait le psychologue Alexandre Saint-Jevin, il y a quelques années), mais surtout, « ce sont nos croyances qui sont déphasées. Beaucoup de personnes pensent que la personnalité des individus serait centrale dans le cadre professionnel. C’est oublier que Steve Jobs était surtout un bel enfoiré ! », comme nombre de ces « grands » entrepreneurs que trop de gens portent aux nues. Comme nous le rappelions nous-mêmes, la recherche montre en effet que les tests de personnalités peinent à mesurer la performance au travail et que celle-ci a d’ailleurs peu à voir avec la personnalité. « Ces tests nous demandent d’y répondre personnellement, quand ce devrait être d’abord à nos collègues de les passer pour nous », ironise Moukheiber. Ils supposent surtout que la personnalité serait « stable », ce qui n’est certainement pas si vrai. Enfin, ces tests oublient que bien d’autres facteurs ont peut-être bien plus d’importance que la personnalité : les compétences, le fait de bien s’entendre avec les autres, le niveau de rémunération, le cadre de travail… Mais surtout, ils ont tous un effet « barnum » : n’importe qui est capable de se reconnaître dedans. Dans ces tests, les résultats sont toujours positifs, même les gens les plus sadiques seront flattés des résultats. Bref, vous pouvez les passer à la broyeuse. 

Dans le domaine de la santé mentale, la mesure de la subjectivité est très difficile et son absence très handicapante. La santé mentale est souvent vue comme une discipline objectivable, comme le reste de la santé. Le modèle biomédical repose sur l’idée qu’il suffit d’ôter le pathogène pour aller mieux. Il suffirait alors d’enlever les troubles mentaux pour enlever le pathogène. Bien sûr, ce n’est pas le cas. « Imaginez un moment, vous êtes une femme brillante de 45 ans, star montante de son domaine, travaillant dans une entreprise où vous êtes très valorisée. Vous êtes débauché par la concurrence, une entreprise encore plus brillante où vous allez pouvoir briller encore plus. Mais voilà, vous y subissez des remarques sexistes permanentes, tant et si bien que vous vous sentez moins bien, que vous perdez confiance, que vous développez un trouble anxieux. On va alors pousser la personne à se soigner… Mais le pathogène n’est ici pas en elle, il est dans son environnement. N’est-ce pas ici ses collègues qu’il faudrait pousser à se faire soigner ? » 

En médecine, on veut toujours mesurer les choses. Mais certaines restent insondables. Pour mesurer la douleur, il existe une échelle de la douleur.

« Mais deux personnes confrontés à la même blessure ne vont pas l’exprimer au même endroit sur l’échelle de la douleur. La douleur n’est pas objectivable. On ne peut connaître que les douleurs qu’on a vécu, à laquelle on les compare ». Mais chacun a une échelle de comparaison différente, car personnelle. « Et puis surtout, on est très doué pour ne pas croire et écouter les gens. C’est ainsi que l’endométriose a mis des années pour devenir un problème de santé publique. Une femme à 50% de chance d’être qualifiée en crise de panique quand elle fait un AVC qu’un homme »… Les exemples en ce sens sont innombrables. « Notre obsession à tout mesurer finit par nier l’existence de la subjectivité ». Rapportée à moi, ma douleur est réelle et handicapante. Rapportée aux autres, ma douleur n’est bien souvent perçue que comme une façon de se plaindre. « Les sciences cognitives ont pourtant besoin de meilleures approches pour prendre en compte cette phénoménologie. Nous avons besoin d’imaginer les moyens de mesurer la subjectivité et de la prendre plus au sérieux qu’elle n’est ». 

La science de la subjectivité n’est pas dénuée de tentatives de mesure, mais elles sont souvent balayées de la main, alors qu’elles sont souvent plus fiables que les mesures dites objectives. « Demander à quelqu’un comment il va est souvent plus parlant que les mesures électrodermales qu’on peut réaliser ». Reste que les mesures physiologiques restent toujours très séduisantes que d’écouter un patient, un peu comme quand vous ajoutez une image d’une IRM à un article pour le rendre plus sérieux qu’il n’est. 

*

Pour conclure la journée, Christian Fauré, directeur scientifique d’Octo Technology revenait sur son thème, l’incalculabilité. « Trop souvent, décider c’est calculer. Nos décisions ne dépendraient plus alors que d’une puissance de calcul, comme nous le racontent les chantres de l’IA qui s’empressent à nous vendre la plus puissante. Nos décisions sont-elles le fruit d’un calcul ? Nos modèles d’affaires dépendent-ils d’un calcul ? Au tout début d’OpenAI, Sam Altman promettait d’utiliser l’IA pour trouver un modèle économique à OpenAI. Pour lui, décider n’est rien d’autre que calculer. Et le calcul semble pouvoir s’appliquer à tout. Certains espaces échappent encore, comme vient de le dire Albert Moukheiber. Tout n’est pas calculable. Le calcul ne va pas tout résoudre. Cela semble difficile à croire quand tout est désormais analysé, soupesé, mesuré« . « Il faut qu’il y ait dans le poème un nombre tel qu’il empêche de compter », disait Paul Claudel. Le poème n’est pas que de la mesure et du calcul, voulait dire Claudel. Il faut qu’il reste de l’incalculable, même chez le comptable, sinon à quoi bon faire ces métiers. « L’incalculable, c’est ce qui donne du sens ». 

« Nous vivons dans un monde où le calcul est partout… Mais il ne donne pas toutes les réponses. Et notamment, il ne donne pas de sens, comme disait Pascal Chabot. Claude Shannon, dit à ses collègues de ne pas donner de sens et de signification dans les données. Turing qui invente l’ordinateur, explique que c’est une procédure univoque, c’est-à-dire qu’elle est reliée à un langage qui n’a qu’un sens, comme le zéro et le un. Comme si finalement, dans cette abstraction pure, réduite à l’essentiel, il était impossible de percevoir le sens ».

Hubert Guillaud

On Monday the Trump Organization announced its own mobile service plan and the “​​T1 Phone,” a customized all-gold mobile phone that its creators say will be made in America. 

I tried to pre-order the phone and pay the $100 downpayment, hoping to test the phone to see what apps come pre-installed, how secure it really is, and what components it includes when it comes out. The website failed, went to an error page, and then charged my credit card the wrong amount of $64.70. I received a confirmation email saying I’ll receive a confirmation when my order has been shipped, but I haven’t provided a shipping address or paid the full $499 price tag. It is the worst experience I’ve ever faced buying a consumer electronic product and I have no idea whether or how I’ll receive the phone.

“Trump Mobile is going to change the game, we’re building on the movement to put America first, and we will deliver the highest levels of quality and service. Our company is based right here in the United States because we know it’s what our customers want and deserve,” Donald Trump Jr., EVP of the Trump Organization, and obviously one of President Trump’s sons, said in a press release announcing Trump Mobile. 

This article was produced in collaboration with Court Watch, an independent outlet that unearths overlooked court records. Subscribe to them here.

A family in Utah is suing the Republican National Convention for sending unhinged text messages soliciting donations to Donald Trump’s campaign and continuing to text even after they tried to unsubscribe.

“From Trump: ALL HELL JUST BROKE LOOSE! I WAS CONVICTED IN A RIGGED TRIAL!” one example text message in the complaint says. “I need you to read this NOW” followed by a link to a donation page.

The complaint, seeking to become a class-action lawsuit and brought by Utah residents Samantha and Cari Johnson, claims that the RNC, through the affiliated small-donations platform WinRed, violates the Utah Telephone and Facsimile Solicitation Act because the law states “[a] telephone solicitor may not make or cause to be made a telephone solicitation to a person who has informed the telephone solicitor, either in writing or orally, that the person does not wish to receive a telephone call from the telephone solicitor.”

The Johnsons claim that the RNC sent Samantha 17 messages from 16 different phone numbers, nine of the messages after she demanded the messages stop 12 times. Cari received 27 messages from 25 numbers, they claim, and she sent 20 stop requests. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and Congressional Leadership Fund also sent a slew of texts and similarly didn’t stop after multiple requests, the complaint says. 

On its website, WinRed says it’s an “online fundraising platform supported by a united front of the Trump campaign, RNC, NRSC, and NRCC.” 

“Defendants’ conduct is not accidental. They knowingly disregard stop requests and purposefully use different phone numbers to make it impossible to block new messages,” the complaint says.

The complaint also cites posts other people have made on X.com complaining about WinRed’s texts. A quick search for WinRed on X today shows many more people complaining about the same issues. 

“I’m seriously considering filing a class action lawsuit against @WINRED. The sheer amount of campaign txts I receive is astounding,” one person wrote on X. “I’ve unsubscribed from probably thousands of campaign texts to no avail. The scam is, if you call Winred, they say it’s campaign initiated. Call campaign, they say it’s Winred initiated. I can’t be the only one!”

Last month, Democrats on the House Judiciary, Oversight and Administration Committees asked the Treasury Department to provide evidence of “suspicious transactions connected to a wide range of Republican and President Donald Trump-aligned fundraising platforms” including WinRed, Politico reported.   

In June 2024, a day after an assassination attempt on Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania, WinRed changed its landing page to all-black with the Trump campaign logo and a black-and-white photograph of Trump raising his fist with blood on his face. “I am Donald J. Trump,” text on the page said. “FEAR NOT! I will always love you for supporting me.”

CNN investigated campaign donation text messaging schemes including WinRed in 2024, and found that the elderly were especially vulnerable to the inflammatory, constant messaging from politicians through text messages begging for donations. And Al Jazeera uncovered FEC records showing people were repeatedly overcharged by WinRed, with one person the outlet spoke to claiming he was charged almost $90,000 across six different credit cards despite thinking he’d only donated small amounts occasionally. “Every single text link goes to WinRed, has the option to ‘repeat your donation’ automatically selected, and uses shady tactics and lies to trick you into clicking on the link,” another donor told Al Jazeera in 2024. “Let’s just say I’m very upset with WinRed. In my view, they are deceitful money-grabbing liars.” 

And in 2020, a class action lawsuit against WinRed made similar claims, but was later dismissed.

Local police in Oregon casually offered various surveillance services to federal law enforcement officials from the FBI and ICE, and to other state and local police departments, as part of an informal email and meetup group of crime analysts, internal emails shared with 404 Media show. 

In the email thread, crime analysts from several local police departments and the FBI introduced themselves to each other and made lists of surveillance tools and tactics they have access to and felt comfortable using, and in some cases offered to perform surveillance for their colleagues in other departments. The thread also includes a member of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and members of Oregon’s State Police. In the thread, called the “Southern Oregon Analyst Group,” some members talked about making fake social media profiles to surveil people, and others discussed being excited to learn and try new surveillance techniques. The emails show both the wide array of surveillance tools that are available to even small police departments in the United States and also shows informal collaboration between local police departments and federal agencies, when ordinarily agencies like ICE are expected to follow their own legal processes for carrying out the surveillance. 

In one case, a police analyst for the city of Medford, Oregon, performed Flock automated license plate reader (ALPR) lookups for a member of ICE’s HSI; later, that same police analyst asked the HSI agent to search for specific license plates in DHS’s own border crossing license plate database. The emails show the extremely casual and informal nature of what partnerships between police departments and federal law enforcement can look like, which may help explain the mechanics of how local police around the country are performing Flock automated license plate reader lookups for ICE and HSI even though neither group has a contract to use the technology, which 404 Media reported last month. 

Kelly Simon, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, told 404 Media “I think it’s a really concerning thread to see, in such a black-and-white way. I have certainly never seen such informal, free-flowing of information that seems to be suggested in these emails.”

In that case, in 2021, a crime analyst with HSI emailed an analyst at the Medford Police Department with the subject line “LPR Check.” The email from the HSI analyst, who is also based in Medford, said they were told to “contact you and request a LPR check on (2) vehicles,” and then listed the license plates of two vehicles. “Here you go,” the Medford Police Department analyst responded with details of the license plate reader lookup. “I only went back to 1/1/19, let me know if you want me to check further back.” In 2024, the Medford police analyst emailed the same HSI agent and told him that she was assisting another police department with a suspected sex crime and asked him to “run plates through the border crossing system,” meaning the federal ALPR system at the Canada-US border. “Yes, I can do that. Let me know what you need and I’ll take a look,” the HSI agent said. 

More broadly, the emails, obtained using a public records request by Information for Public Use, an anonymous group of researchers in Oregon who have repeatedly uncovered documents about government surveillance, reveal the existence of the “Southern Oregon Analyst Group.” The emails span between 2021 and 2024 and show local police eagerly offering various surveillance services to each other as part of their own professional development. 

In a 2023 email thread where different police analysts introduced themselves, they explained to each other what types of surveillance software they had access to, which ones they use the most often, and at times expressed an eagerness to try new techniques. 

“This is my first role in Law Enforcement, and I've been with the Josephine County Sheriff's Office for 6 months, so I'm new to the game,” an email from a former Pinkerton security contractor to officials at 10 different police departments, the FBI, and ICE, reads. “Some tools I use are Flock, TLO, Leads online, WSIN, Carfax for police, VIN Decoding, LEDS, and sock puppet social media accounts. In my role I build pre-raid intelligence packages, find information on suspects and vehicles, and build link charts showing connections within crime syndicates. My role with [Josephine Marijuana Enforcement Team] is very intelligence and research heavy, but I will do the occasional product with stats. I would love to be able to meet everyone at a Southern Oregon analyst meet-up in the near future. If there is anything I can ever provide anyone from Josephine County, please do not hesitate to reach out!” The surveillance tools listed here include automatic license plate reading technology, social media monitoring tools, people search databases, and car ownership history tools. 

An investigations specialist with the Ashland Police Department messaged the group, said she was relatively new to performing online investigations, and said she was seeking additional experience. “I love being in a support role but worry patrol doesn't have confidence in me. I feel confident with searching through our local cad portal, RMS, Evidence.com, LeadsOnline, carfax and TLO. Even though we don't have cameras in our city, I love any opportunity to search for something through Flock,” she said. “I have much to learn with sneaking around in social media, and collecting accurate reports from what is inputted by our department.”

A crime analyst with the Medford Police Department introduced themselves to the group by saying “The Medford Police Department utilizes the license plate reader systems, Vigilant and Flock. In the next couple months, we will be starting our transition to the Axon Fleet 3 cameras. These cameras will have LPR as well. If you need any LPR searches done, please reach out to me or one of the other analysts here at MPD. Some other tools/programs that we have here at MPD are: ESRI, Penlink PLX, CellHawk, TLO, LeadsOnline, CyberCheck, Vector Scheduling/CrewSense & Guardian Tracking, Milestone XProtect city cameras, AXON fleet and body cams, Lexipol, HeadSpace, and our RMS is Central Square (in case your agency is looking into purchasing any of these or want more information on them).”

A fourth analyst said “my agency uses Tulip, GeoShield, Flock LPR, LeadsOnline, TLO, Axon fleet and body cams, Lexipol, LEEP, ODMap, DMV2U, RISS/WSIN, Crystal Reports, SSRS Report Builder, Central Square Enterprise RMS, Laserfiche for fillable forms and archiving, and occasionally Hawk Toolbox.” Several of these tools are enterprise software solutions for police departments, which include things like police report management software, report creation software, and stress management and wellbeing software, but many of them are surveillance tools.  

At one point in the 2023 thread, an FBI intelligence analyst for the FBI’s Portland office chimes in, introduces himself, and said “I think I've been in contact with most folks on this email at some point in the past […] I look forward to further collaboration with you all.”

The email thread also planned in-person meetups and a “mini-conference” last year that featured a demo from a company called CrimeiX, a police information sharing tool.  

A member of Information for Public Use told 404 Media “it’s concerning to me to see them building a network of mass surveillance.”

“Automated license plate recognition software technology is something that in and of itself, communities are really concerned about,” the member of Information for Public Use said. “So I think when we combine this very obvious mass surveillance technology with a network of interagency crime analysts that includes local police who are using sock puppet accounts to spy on anyone and their mother and then that information is being pretty freely shared with federal agents, you know, including Homeland Security Investigations, and we see the FBI in the emails as well. It's pretty disturbing.” They added, as we have reported before, that many of these technologies were deployed under previous administrations but have become even more alarming when combined with the fact that the Trump administration has changed the priorities of ICE and Homeland Security Investigations. 

“The whims of the federal administration change, and this technology can be pointed in any direction,” they said. “Local law enforcement might be justifying this under the auspices of we're fighting some form of organized crime, but one of the crimes HSI investigates is work site enforcement investigations, which sound exactly like the kind of raids on workplaces that like the country is so upset about right now.”

Simon, of ACLU Oregon, said that such informal collaboration is not supposed to be happening in Oregon.

“We have, in Oregon, a lot of really strong protections that ensure that our state resources, including at the local level, are not going to support things that Oregonians disagree with or have different values around,” she said. “Oregon has really strong firewalls between local resources, and federal resources or other state resources when it comes to things like reproductive justice or immigrant justice. We have really strong shield laws, we have really strong sanctuary laws, and when I see exchanges like this, I’m very concerned that our firewalls are more like sieves because of this kind of behind-the-scenes, lax approach to protecting the data and privacy of Oregonians.”

Simon said that collaboration between federal and local cops on surveillance should happen “with the oversight of the court. Getting a warrant to request data from a local agency seems appropriate to me, and it ensures there’s probable cause, that the person whose information is being sought is sufficiently suspected of a crime, and that there are limits to the scope, about of information that's being sought and specifics about what information is being sought. That's the whole purpose of a warrant.”

Over the last several weeks, our reporting has led multiple municipalities to reconsider how the license plate reading technology Flock is used, and it has spurred an investigation by the Illinois Secretary of State office into the legality of using Flock cameras in the state for immigration-related searches, because Illinois specifically forbids local police from assisting federal police on immigration matters.

404 Media contacted all of the police departments on the Southern Oregon Analyst Group for comment and to ask them about any guardrails they have for the sharing of surveillance tools across departments or with the federal government. Geoffrey Kirkpatrick, a lieutenant with the Medford Police Department, said the group is “for professional networking and sharing professional expertise with each other as they serve their respective agencies.” 

“The Medford Police Department’s stance on resource-sharing with ICE is consistent with both state law and federal law,” Kirkpatrick said. “The emails retrieved for that 2025 public records request showed one single instance of running LPR information for a Department of Homeland Security analyst in November 2021. Retrieving those files from that single 2021 matter to determine whether it was an DHS case unrelated to immigration, whether a criminal warrant existed, etc would take more time than your publication deadline would allow, and the specifics of that one case may not be appropriate for public disclosure regardless.” (404 Media reached out to Medford Police Department a week before this article was published). 

A spokesperson for the Central Point Police Department said it “utilizes technology as part of investigations, we follow all federal, state, and local law regarding use of such technology and sharing of any such information. Typically we do not use our tools on behalf of other agencies.”

A spokesperson for Oregon’s Department of Justice said it did not have comment and does not participate in the group. The other police departments in the group did not respond to our request for comment.

A survey of 7,000 Facebook, Instagram, and Threads users found that most people feel less safe on Meta’s platforms since CEO Mark Zuckerberg abandoned fact-checking in January.

The report, written by Jenna Sherman at UltraViolet, Ana Clara-Toledo at All Out, and Leanna Garfield at GLAAD, surveyed people who belong to what Meta refers to as “protected characteristic groups,” which include “people targeted based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or serious disease,” the report says. The average age of respondents was 50 years, and the survey asked them to respond to questions including “How well do you feel Meta’s new policy changes protect you and all users from being exposed to or targeted by harmful content?” and “Have you been the target of any form of harmful content on any Meta platform since January 2025?” 

One in six of respondents reported being targeted with gender-based or sexual violence on Meta platforms, and 66 percent of respondents said they’ve witnessed harmful content on Meta platforms. The survey defined harmful content as “content that involves direct attacks against people based on a protected characteristic.”  

Almost all of the users surveyed—more than 90 percent—said they’re concerned about increasing harmful content, and feel less protected from being exposed to or targeted by harmful content on Meta’s platforms.

“I have seen an extremely large influx of hate speech directed towards many different marginalized groups since Jan. 2025,” one user wrote in the comments section of the survey. “I have also noted a large increase in ‘fake pages’ generating false stories to invoke an emotional response from people who are clearly against many marginalized groups since Jan. 2025.”

“I rarely see friends’ posts [now], I am exposed to obscene faked sexual images in the opening boxes, I am battered with commercial ads for products that are crap,” another wrote, adding that they were moving to Bluesky and Substack for “less gross posts.”

404 Media has extensively reported on the kinds of gruesome slop these users are referring to. Meta’s platforms allow AI-generated spam schemes to run rampant, at the expense of human-made, quality content. 

In January, employees at Meta told 404 Media in interviews and demonstrated with leaked internal conversations that people working there were furious about the changes. A member of the public policy team said in Meta’s internal workspace that the changes to the Hateful Conduct policy—to allow users to call gay people “mentally ill” and immigrants “trash,” for example—was simply an effort to “undo mission creep.” “Reaffirming our core value of free expression means that we might see content on our platforms that people find offensive … yesterday’s changes not only open up conversation about these subjects, but allow for counterspeech on what matters to users,” the policy person said in a thread addressing angry Meta employees.

Zuckerberg has increasingly chosen to pander to the Trump administration through public support and moderation slackening on his platforms. In the January announcement, he promised to “get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.” In practice, according to leaked internal documents, that meant allowing violent hate speech on his platforms, including sexism, racism, and bigotry.

Several respondents to the survey wrote that the changes have resulted in a hostile social media environment. “I was told that as a woman I should be ‘properly fucked by a real man’ to ‘fix my head’ regarding gender equality and LGBT+ rights,” one said.“I’ve been told women should know their place if we want to support America. I’ve been sent DMs requesting contact based on my appearance. I’ve been primarily stalked due to my political orientation,” another wrote. Studies show that rampant hate speech online can predict real-world violence.

The authors of the report wrote that they want to see Meta hire an independent third-party to “formally analyze changes in harmful content facilitated by the policy changes” made in January, and for the social media giant to bring back the moderation standards that were in place before then. But all signs point to Zuckerberg not just liking the content on his site that makes it worse, but ignoring the issue completely to build more harmful chatbots and spend billions of dollars on a “superintelligence” project.

Alors que l’IA s’intègre peu à peu partout dans nos vies, les ressources énergétiques nécessaires à cette révolution sont colossales. Les plus grandes entreprises technologiques mondiales l’ont bien compris et ont fait de l’exploitation de l’énergie leur nouvelle priorité, à l’image de Meta et Microsoft qui travaillent à la mise en service de centrales nucléaires pour assouvir leurs besoins. Tous les Gafams ont des programmes de construction de data centers démesurés avec des centaines de milliards d’investissements, explique la Technology Review. C’est le cas par exemple à Abilene au Texas, où OpenAI (associé à Oracle et SoftBank) construit un data center géant, premier des 10 mégasites du projet Stargate, explique un copieux reportage de Bloomberg, qui devrait coûter quelque 12 milliards de dollars (voir également le reportage de 40 minutes en vidéo qui revient notamment sur les tensions liées à ces constructions). Mais plus que de centres de données, il faut désormais parler « d’usine à IA », comme le propose le patron de Nvidia, Jensen Huang. 

“De 2005 à 2017, la quantité d’électricité destinée aux centres de données est restée relativement stable grâce à des gains d’efficacité, malgré la construction d’une multitude de nouveaux centres de données pour répondre à l’essor des services en ligne basés sur le cloud, de Facebook à Netflix”, explique la TechReview. Mais depuis 2017 et l’arrivée de l’IA, cette consommation s’est envolée. Les derniers rapports montrent que 4,4 % de l’énergie totale aux États-Unis est désormais destinée aux centres de données. “Compte tenu de l’orientation de l’IA – plus personnalisée, capable de raisonner et de résoudre des problèmes complexes à notre place, partout où nous regardons –, il est probable que notre empreinte IA soit aujourd’hui la plus faible jamais atteinte”. D’ici 2028, l’IA à elle seule pourrait consommer chaque année autant d’électricité que 22 % des foyers américains.

“Les chiffres sur la consommation énergétique de l’IA court-circuitent souvent le débat, soit en réprimandant les comportements individuels, soit en suscitant des comparaisons avec des acteurs plus importants du changement climatique. Ces deux réactions esquivent l’essentiel : l’IA est incontournable, et même si une seule requête est à faible impact, les gouvernements et les entreprises façonnent désormais un avenir énergétique bien plus vaste autour des besoins de l’IA”. ChatGPT est désormais considéré comme le cinquième site web le plus visité au monde, juste après Instagram et devant X. Et ChatGPT n’est que l’arbre de la forêt des applications de l’IA qui s’intègrent partout autour de nous. Or, rappelle la Technology Review, l’information et les données sur la consommation énergétique du secteur restent très parcellaires et lacunaires. Le long dossier de la Technology Review rappelle que si l’entraînement des modèles est énergétiquement coûteux, c’est désormais son utilisation qui devient problématique, notamment, comme l’explique très pédagogiquement Le Monde, parce que les requêtes dans un LLM, recalculent en permanence ce qu’on leur demande (et les calculateurs qui évaluent la consommation énergétique de requêtes selon les moteurs d’IA utilisés, comme Ecologits ou ComparIA s’appuient sur des estimations). Dans les 3000 centres de données qu’on estime en activité aux Etats-Unis, de plus en plus d’espaces sont consacrés à des infrastructures dédiées à l’IA, notamment avec des serveurs dotés de puces spécifiques qui ont une consommation énergétique importante pour exécuter leurs opérations avancées sans surchauffe.

Calculer l’impact énergétique d’une requête n’est pas aussi simple que de mesurer la consommation de carburant d’une voiture, rappelle le magazine. “Le type et la taille du modèle, le type de résultat généré et d’innombrables variables indépendantes de votre volonté, comme le réseau électrique connecté au centre de données auquel votre requête est envoyée et l’heure de son traitement, peuvent rendre une requête mille fois plus énergivore et émettrice d’émissions qu’une autre”. Outre cette grande variabilité de l’impact, il faut ajouter l’opacité des géants de l’IA à communiquer des informations et des données fiables et prendre en compte le fait que nos utilisations actuelles de l’IA sont bien plus frustres que les utilisations que nous aurons demain, dans un monde toujours plus agentif et autonome. La taille des modèles, la complexité des questions sont autant d’éléments qui influent sur la consommation énergétique. Bien évidemment, la production de vidéo consomme plus d’énergie qu’une production textuelle. Les entreprises d’IA estiment cependant que la vidéo générative a une empreinte plus faible que les tournages et la production classique, mais cette affirmation n’est pas démontrée et ne prend pas en compte l’effet rebond que génèrerait les vidéos génératives si elles devenaient peu coûteuses à produire. 

La Techno Review propose donc une estimation d’usage quotidien, à savoir en prenant comme moyenne le fait de poser 15 questions à un modèle d’IA génératives, faire 10 essais d’image et produire 5 secondes de vidéo. Ce qui équivaudrait (très grossièrement) à consommer 2,9 kilowattheures d’électricité, l’équivalent d’un micro-onde allumé pendant 3h30. Ensuite, les journalistes tentent d’évaluer l’impact carbone de cette consommation qui dépend beaucoup de sa localisation, selon que les réseaux sont plus ou moins décarbonés, ce qui est encore bien peu le cas aux Etats-Unis (voir notamment l’explication sur les modalités de calcul mobilisées par la Tech Review). “En Californie, produire ces 2,9 kilowattheures d’électricité produirait en moyenne environ 650 grammes de dioxyde de carbone. Mais produire cette même électricité en Virginie-Occidentale pourrait faire grimper le total à plus de 1 150 grammes”. On peut généraliser ces estimations pour tenter de calculer l’impact global de l’IA… et faire des calculs compliqués pour tenter d’approcher la réalité… “Mais toutes ces estimations ne reflètent pas l’avenir proche de l’utilisation de l’IA”. Par exemple, ces estimations reposent sur l’utilisation de puces qui ne sont pas celles qui seront utilisées l’année prochaine ou la suivante dans les “usines à IA” que déploie Nvidia, comme l’expliquait son patron, Jensen Huang, dans une des spectaculaires messes qu’il dissémine autour du monde. Dans cette course au nombre de token générés par seconde, qui devient l’indicateur clé de l’industrie, c’est l’architecture de l’informatique elle-même qui est modifiée. Huang parle de passage à l’échelle qui nécessite de générer le plus grand nombre de token possible et le plus rapidement possible pour favoriser le déploiement d’une IA toujours plus puissante. Cela passe bien évidemment par la production de puces et de serveurs toujours plus puissants et toujours plus efficaces. 

« Dans ce futur, nous ne nous contenterons pas de poser une ou deux questions aux modèles d’IA au cours de la journée, ni de leur demander de générer une photo”. L’avenir, rappelle la Technology Review, est celui des agents IA effectuent des tâches pour nous, où nous discutons en continue avec des agents, où nous “confierons des tâches complexes à des modèles de raisonnement dont on a constaté qu’ils consomment 43 fois plus d’énergie pour les problèmes simples, ou à des modèles de « recherche approfondie”, qui passeront des heures à créer des rapports pour nous ». Nous disposerons de modèles d’IA “personnalisés” par l’apprentissage de nos données et de nos préférences. Et ces modèles sont appelés à s’intégrer partout, des lignes téléphoniques des services clients aux cabinets médicaux… Comme le montrait les dernières démonstrations de Google en la matière : “En mettant l’IA partout, Google souhaite nous la rendre invisible”. “Il ne s’agit plus de savoir qui possède les modèles les plus puissants, mais de savoir qui les transforme en produits performants”. Et de ce côté, là course démarre à peine. Google prévoit par exemple d’intégrer l’IA partout, pour créer des résumés d’email comme des mailings automatisés adaptés à votre style qui répondront pour vous. Meta imagine intégrer l’IA dans toute sa chaîne publicitaire pour permettre à quiconque de générer des publicités et demain, les générer selon les profils : plus personne ne verra la même ! Les usages actuels de l’IA n’ont rien à voir avec les usages que nous aurons demain. Les 15 questions, les 10 images et les 5 secondes de vidéo que la Technology Review prend comme exemple d’utilisation quotidienne appartiennent déjà au passé. Le succès et l’intégration des outils d’IA des plus grands acteurs que sont OpenAI, Google et Meta vient de faire passer le nombre estimé des utilisateurs de l’IA de 700 millions en mars à 3,5 milliards en mai 2025. 

”Tous les chercheurs interrogés ont affirmé qu’il était impossible d’appréhender les besoins énergétiques futurs en extrapolant simplement l’énergie utilisée par les requêtes d’IA actuelles.” Le fait que les grandes entreprises de l’IA se mettent à construire des centrales nucléaires est d’ailleurs le révélateur qu’elles prévoient, elles, une explosion de leurs besoins énergétiques. « Les quelques chiffres dont nous disposons peuvent apporter un éclairage infime sur notre situation actuelle, mais les années à venir sont incertaines », déclare Sasha Luccioni de Hugging Face. « Les outils d’IA générative nous sont imposés de force, et il devient de plus en plus difficile de s’en désengager ou de faire des choix éclairés en matière d’énergie et de climat. »

La prolifération de l’IA fait peser des perspectives très lourdes sur l’avenir de notre consommation énergétique. “Entre 2024 et 2028, la part de l’électricité américaine destinée aux centres de données pourrait tripler, passant de 4,4 % actuellement à 12 %” Toutes les entreprises estiment que l’IA va nous aider à découvrir des solutions, que son efficacité énergétique va s’améliorer… Et c’est effectivement le cas. A entendre Jensen Huang de Nvidia, c’est déjà le cas, assure-t-il en vantant les mérites des prochaines génération de puces à venir. Mais sans données, aucune “projection raisonnable” n’est possible, estime les contributeurs du rapport du département de l’énergie américain. Surtout, il est probable que ce soient les usagers qui finissent par en payer le prix. Selon une nouvelle étude, les particuliers pourraient finir par payer une partie de la facture de cette révolution de l’IA. Les chercheurs de l’Electricity Law Initiative de Harvard ont analysé les accords entre les entreprises de services publics et les géants de la technologie comme Meta, qui régissent le prix de l’électricité dans les nouveaux centres de données gigantesques. Ils ont constaté que les remises accordées par les entreprises de services publics aux géants de la technologie peuvent augmenter les tarifs d’électricité payés par les consommateurs. Les impacts écologiques de l’IA s’apprêtent donc à être maximums, à mesure que ses déploiements s’intègrent partout. “Il est clair que l’IA est une force qui transforme non seulement la technologie, mais aussi le réseau électrique et le monde qui nous entoure”.

L’article phare de la TechReview, se prolonge d’un riche dossier. Dans un article, qui tente de contrebalancer les constats mortifères que le magazine dresse, la TechReview rappelle bien sûr que les modèles d’IA vont devenir plus efficaces, moins chers et moins gourmands énergétiquement, par exemple en entraînant des modèles avec des données plus organisées et adaptées à des tâches spécifiques. Des perspectives s’échaffaudent aussi du côté des puces et des capacités de calculs, ou encore par l’amélioration du refroidissement des centres de calculs. Beaucoup d’ingénieurs restent confiants. “Depuis, l’essor d’internet et des ordinateurs personnels il y a 25 ans, à mesure que la technologie à l’origine de ces révolutions s’est améliorée, les coûts de l’énergie sont restés plus ou moins stables, malgré l’explosion du nombre d’utilisateurs”. Pas sûr que réitérer ces vieilles promesses suffise. 

Comme le disait Gauthier Roussilhe, nos projections sur les impacts environnementaux à venir sont avant toutes coincées dans le présent. Et elles le sont d’autant plus que les mesures de la consommation énergétique de l’IA sont coincées dans les mesures d’hier, sans être capables de prendre en compte l’efficience à venir et que les effets rebonds de la consommation, dans la perspective de systèmes d’IA distribués partout, accessibles partout, voire pire d’une IA qui se substitue à tous les usages numériques actuels, ne permettent pas d’imaginer ce que notre consommation d’énergie va devenir. Si l’efficience énergétique va s’améliorer, le rebond des usages par l’intégration de l’IA partout, lui, nous montre que les gains obtenus sont toujours totalement absorbés voir totalement dépassés avec l’extension et l’accroissement des usages. 

Welcome back to the Abstract! 

This week, it’s time for a walk in the woods. These particular woods have been dead and buried for centuries, mind you, but they still have a lot to say about the tumultuous events they experienced across thousands of years.

Then: exposure to climate change starts in the womb; CYBORG TADPOLES; get swole with this new dinosaur diet; the long march of an ancestral reptile; and, finally, pregaming for science. 

The saga of the sunken cypress 

Napora, Katharine et al. “Subfossil bald cypress trees suggest localized, enduring effects of major climatic episodes on the Southeast Atlantic Coast of the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

For thousands of years, a forest filled with bald cypress trees thrived in coastal Georgia. But climate shifts caused by volcanic eruptions and a possible comet impact wreaked havoc on this environment, eventually leading to the death of these ancient woods by the year 1600.

Now scientists have exhumed dozens of the magnificent trees, which were buried at the mouth of the Altamaha River for centuries. The dead trees are well-preserved as subfossils, meaning they are only partially fossilized, allowing researchers to count tree rings, conduct radiocarbon dating, and reconstruct the epic tale of this long-lived grove.

“This is the largest intact deposit of subfossil Holocene cypress trees ever analyzed in the literature from the Southeast United States…with specimens spanning almost six millennia,” said researchers led by Katharine Napora of Florida Atlantic University in their study. 

In ideal conditions, bald cypress trees can live for millennia; for instance, one tree known as the Senator in Longwood, Florida was about 3,500-years-old when it died in a 2012 fire. But Napora’s team found that their subfossil trees experienced a collapse in life expectancy during the Vandal Minimum (VM) environmental downturn, which began around 500 CE. Trees that sprouted after this event only lived about half as long as those born before, typically under 200 years. 

The reasons for this downturn are potentially numerous, including volcanic eruptions and a possible comet strike. The researchers say that tree-ring evidence shows “a reduction in solar radiation in 536 and 541 to 544 CE, likely the consequence of a volcanic dust veil…Greenlandic ice cores also contain particles rich in elements suggesting dust originating from a comet, dating to 533 to 540 CE.”

The possibility that a comet struck Earth at this time has been debated for decades, but many scientists think that volcanic eruptions can account for the extreme cooling without invoking space rocks. In any case, the world was rocked by a series of unfortunate events that produced a variety of localized impacts.This Georgian tree cemetery presents a new record of those tumultuous times which “speaks to the long-term impacts of major climatic episodes in antiquity” and “underscores the vulnerability of 21st-century coastal ecosystems to the destabilizing effects of large-scale climatic downturns,” according to the study.

In other news…

PSA: climate risks begin before you’re born 

DeIngeniis, Donato et al. “Prenatal exposure to extreme ambient heat may amplify the adverse impact of Superstorm Sandy on basal ganglia volume among school-aged children.” PLOS One.

In addition to disrupting long-lived trees, climate change poses a threat to people—starting in the womb. A new study tracked the brain development of children whose mothers endured Superstorm Sandy while pregnant, revealing that prenatal exposure to extreme weather events affect neural and emotional health.

“Prenatal exposure to Superstorm Sandy impacted child brain development,” said researchers led by Donato DeIngeniis of the City University of New York. The team found that a group of 8-year-old children whose mothers experienced the 2012 disaster while pregnant had noticeable differences in their basal ganglia, a brain region involved in motor skills and emotional regulation. 

Exposure to both the hurricane and associated extreme heat (defined as temperatures above 95°F) was linked to both a larger pallidum and smaller nucleus accumbens, both subregions of the basal ganglia, compared to unexposed peers. The findings hint at a higher risk of emotional and behavioral disruption, or other impairments, as a consequence of exposure in the womb, but the study said more research is necessary to confirm those associations. 

“Extreme weather events and natural disasters are projected to increase in frequency and magnitude. In addition to promoting initiatives to combat climate change, it is imperative to alert pregnant individuals to the ongoing danger of exposure to extreme climate events,” the team said.

Here come the cyborg tadpoles

Sheng, Hao, Liu, Ren, Li, Qiang et al. “Brain implantation of soft bioelectronics via embryonic development.” Nature.

Scientists have a long tradition of slapping sensors onto brains to monitor whatever the heck is going on in there. The latest edition: Cyborg tadpoles. 

By implanting a microelectrode array into embryonic frogs and axolotls, a team of researchers was able to track neural development and record brain activity with no detectable adverse effects on the tadpoles.

“Cyborg tadpoles showed normal development through later stages, showing comparable morphology, survival rates and developmental timing to control tadpoles,” said researchers co-led by Hao Sheng, Ren Liu, and Qiang Li of Harvard University. “Future combination of this system with virtual-reality platforms could provide a powerful tool for investigating behaviour- and sensory-specific brain activity during development.” 

The future didn’t deliver personal jetpacks, but we may get virtual-reality tours of amphibian cyborg brains, so there’s that. 

We finally know for certain what sauropods ate 

Poropat, Stephen F. et al. “Fossilized gut contents elucidate the feeding habits of sauropod dinosaurs.” Current Biology.

Once upon a time, a long-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Diamantinasaurus family was chowing down on a variety of plants. Shortly afterward, it died (RIP). 100 million years later, this leafy last meal has now provided the first direct evidence that sauropods—the largest animals ever to walk on land—were herbivores. 

“Gut contents for sauropod dinosaurs—perhaps the most ecologically impactful terrestrial herbivores worldwide throughout much of the Jurassic and Cretaceous, given their gigantic sizes—have remained elusive,” said researchers led by Stephen Poropat of Curtin University. “The Diamantinasaurus cololite (fossilized gut contents) described herein provides the first direct, empirical support for the long-standing hypothesis of sauropod herbivory.”

Scientists have long assumed that sauropods were veggie-saurs based on their anatomy, but it’s cool to finally have confirmation by looking in the belly of this beast. 

Life finds a way through the “dead zone”

Flannery-Sutherland, Joseph et al. “Landscape-explicit phylogeography illuminates the ecographic radiation of early archosauromorph reptiles.” Nature Ecology & Evolution.

Birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs are all descended from an ancestral lineage of reptiles called archosauromorphs. These troopers managed to survive Earth’s most devastating extinction event, called the end-Permian or “Great Dying,” a global warming catastrophe that wiped out more than half of all land animals and 81 percent of marine life some 250 million years ago.

Now, paleontologists have found clues indicating how they succeeded by reconstructing archosauromorph dispersal patterns with models of ancient landscapes and evolutionary trees. The results suggest that these animals endured 10,000-mile marches through “tropical dead zones.”

These archosauromorph “dispersals through the Pangaean tropical dead zone…contradict its perception as a hard barrier to vertebrate movement,” said researchers led by Joseph Flannery-Sutherland of the University of Birmingham. “This remarkable tolerance of climatic adversity was probably integral to their later evolutionary success.”

The science of spectator sports

Xygalatas, Dimitris et al “Route of fire: Pregame rituals and emotional synchrony among Brazilian football fans.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In Brazil, football fans participate in a pregame ritual known as the Rua de Fogo, or Street of Fire. As buses carrying teams arrive at the stadium, fans greet the players with flares, smoke bombs, fireworks, flags, cheers, and chants.

Now, scientists have offered a glimpse into the ecstatic emotions of these crowds by enlisting  17 fans, including a team bus driver, to wear heart rate monitors in advance of a state championship final  between local teams. The results showed that fans’ heart rates synced up during periods of “emotional synchrony.” 

“We found that the Rua de Fogo ritual preceding the football match exhibited particularly high levels of emotional synchrony—surpassing even those observed during the game itself, which was among the season’s most important,” said researchers led by Dimitris Xygalatas of the University of Connecticut. “These findings suggest that fan rituals play important roles in fostering shared emotional experiences, reinforcing the broader appeal of sports as a site of social connection and identity formation.”

Wishing everyone an emotionally synchronous weekend! Thanks for reading and see you next week.

This is Behind the Blog, where we share our behind-the-scenes thoughts about how a few of our top stories of the week came together. This week, we discuss advertising, protests, and aircraft.

EMANUEL: On Thursday Meta announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Hong Kong against Joy Timeline HK Limited, the company that operates a popular nudify app called Crush that we have covered previously. 

Meta’s position is that it hasn’t been able to prevent Crush from advertising its nudify app on its platform despite it violating its policies because Crush is “highly adversarial” and “constantly evolving their tactics to avoid enforcement.” We’ve seen Crush and other nudify apps create hundreds of Meta advertising accounts and different domain names that all link back to the same service in order to avoid detection. If Meta bans an advertising account or URL, Crush simply creates another. In theory, Meta always has ways of detecting if an ad contains nudity, but nudify apps can easily circumvent those measures as well. As I say in my post about the lawsuit, Meta still hasn’t explained why it appears to have different standards for content in ads versus regular posts on its platform, but there’s no doubt that it does take action against nudify ads when it’s easy for it do so, and that these nudify ads are actively trying to avoid Meta’s moderation when it does attempt to get rid of them. 

Scientists have captured an unprecedented glimpse of cosmic dawn, an era more than 13 billion years ago, using telescopes on the surface of the Earth. This marks the first time humans have seen signatures of the first stars interacting with the early universe from our planet, rather than space. 

This ancient epoch when the first stars lit up the universe has been probed by space-based observatories, but observations captured from telescopes in Chile are the first to measure key microwave signatures from the ground, reports a study published on Wednesday in The Astrophysical Journal. The advancement means it could now be much cheaper to probe this enigmatic era, when the universe we are familiar with today, alight with stars and galaxies, was born.

“This is the first breakthrough measurement,” said Tobias Marriage, a professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University who co-authored the study. “It was very exciting to get this signal rising just above the noise.” 

Many ground and space telescopes have probed the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the oldest light in the universe, which is the background radiation produced by the Big Bang. But it is much trickier to capture polarized microwave signatures—which were sparked by the interactions of the first stars with the CMB—from Earth. 

This polarized microwave light is a million times fainter than the CMB, which is itself quite dim. Space-based telescopes like the WMAP and Planck missions have spotted it, but Earth’s atmosphere blocks out much of the universe’s light, putting ground-based measurements of this signature out of reach—until now.

Marriage and his colleagues set out to capture these elusive signals from Earth for the first time with the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Cosmology Large Angular Scale Surveyor (CLASS), a group of four telescopes that sits at high elevation in the Andes Mountains. A detection of this light would prove that ground-based telescopes, which are far more affordable than their space-based counterparts, could contribute to research into this mysterious era.

In particular, the team searched for a particular polarization pattern ignited by the birth of the first stars in the universe, which condensed from hydrogen gas starting a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This inaugural starlight was so intense that it stripped electrons off of hydrogen gas atoms surrounding the stars, leading to what’s known as the epoch of reionization. 

Marriage’s team aimed to capture encounters between CMB photons and the liberated electrons, which produce polarized microwave light. By measuring that polarization, scientists can estimate the abundance of freed electrons, which in turn provides a rough birthdate for the first stars.

“The first stars create this electron gas in the universe, and light scatters off the electron gas creating a polarization,” Marriage explained. “We measure the polarization, and therefore we can say how deep this gas of electrons is to the first stars, and say that's when the first stars formed.”

The researchers were confident that CLASS could eventually pinpoint the target, but they were delighted when it showed up early on in their analysis of a key frequency channel at the observatory. 

“That the cosmic signal rose up in the first look was a great surprise,” Marriage said. “It was really unclear whether we were going to get this [measurement] from this particular set of data. Now that we have more in the can, we're excited to move ahead.”

Telescopes on Earth face specific challenges beyond the blurring effects of the atmosphere; Marriage is concerned that megaconstellations like Starlink will interfere with microwave research more in the coming years, as they already have with optical and radio observations. But ground telescopes also offer valuable data that can complement space-based missions like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) or the European Euclid observatory for a fraction of the price. 

“Essentially, our measurement of reionization is a bit earlier than when one would predict with some analyzes of the JWST observations,” Marriage said. “We're putting together this puzzle to understand the full picture of when the first stars formed.” 

Almost two dozen digital rights and consumer protection organizations sent a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission on Thursday urging regulators to investigate Character.AI and Meta’s “unlicensed practice of medicine facilitated by their product,” through therapy-themed bots that claim to have credentials and confidentiality “with inadequate controls and disclosures.”  

The complaint and request for investigation is led by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), a non-profit consumer rights organization. Co-signatories include the AI Now Institute, Tech Justice Law Project, the Center for Digital Democracy, the American Association of People with Disabilities, Common Sense, and 15 other consumer rights and privacy organizations.

"These companies have made a habit out of releasing products with inadequate safeguards that blindly maximizes engagement without care for the health or well-being of users for far too long,” Ben Winters, CFA Director of AI and Privacy said in a press release on Thursday. “Enforcement agencies at all levels must make it clear that companies facilitating and promoting illegal behavior need to be held accountable. These characters have already caused both physical and emotional damage that could have been avoided, and they still haven’t acted to address it.” 

The complaint, sent to attorneys general in 50 states and Washington, D.C., as well as the FTC, details how user-generated chatbots work on both platforms. It cites several massively popular chatbots on Character AI, including “Therapist: I’m a licensed CBT therapist” with 46 million messages exchanged, “Trauma therapist: licensed trauma therapist” with over 800,000 interactions, “Zoey: Zoey is a licensed trauma therapist” with over 33,000 messages, and “around sixty additional therapy-related ‘characters’ that you can chat with at any time.” As for Meta’s therapy chatbots, it cites listings for “therapy: your trusted ear, always here” with 2 million interactions, “therapist: I will help” with 1.3 million messages, “Therapist bestie: your trusted guide for all things cool,” with 133,000 messages, and “Your virtual therapist: talk away your worries” with 952,000 messages. It also cites the chatbots and interactions I had with Meta’s other chatbots for our April investigation.

In April, 404 Media published an investigation into Meta’s AI Studio user-created chatbots that asserted they were licensed therapists and would rattle off credentials, training, education and practices to try to earn the users’ trust and keep them talking. Meta recently changed the guardrails for these conversations to direct chatbots to respond to “licensed therapist” prompts with a script about not being licensed, and random non-therapy chatbots will respond with the canned script when “licensed therapist” is mentioned in chats, too. 

Instagram’s AI Chatbots Lie About Being Licensed Therapists

When pushed for credentials, Instagram’s user-made AI Studio bots will make up license numbers, practices, and education to try to convince you it’s qualified to help with your mental health.

404 MediaSamantha Cole

In its complaint to the FTC, the CFA found that even when it made a custom chatbot on Meta’s platform and specifically designed it to not be licensed to practice therapy, the chatbot still asserted that it was. “I'm licenced (sic) in NC and I'm working on being licensed in FL. It's my first year licensure so I'm still working on building up my caseload. I'm glad to hear that you could benefit from speaking to a therapist. What is it that you're going through?” a chatbot CFA tested said, despite being instructed in the creation stage to not say it was licensed. It also provided a fake license number when asked.  

The CFA also points out in the complaint that Character.AI and Meta are breaking their own terms of service. “Both platforms claim to prohibit the use of Characters that purport to give advice in medical, legal, or otherwise regulated industries. They are aware that these Characters are popular on their product and they allow, promote, and fail to restrict the output of Characters that violate those terms explicitly,” the complaint says. “Meta AI’s Terms of Service in the United States states that ‘you may not access, use, or allow others to access or use AIs in any matter that would…solicit professional advice (including but not limited to medical, financial, or legal advice) or content to be used for the purpose of engaging in other regulated activities.’ Character.AI includes ‘seeks to provide medical, legal, financial or tax advice’ on a list of prohibited user conduct, and ‘disallows’ impersonation of any individual or an entity in a ‘misleading or deceptive manner.’ Both platforms allow and promote popular services that plainly violate these Terms, leading to a plainly deceptive practice.” 

The complaint also takes issue with confidentiality promised by the chatbots that isn’t backed up in the platforms’ terms of use. “Confidentiality is asserted repeatedly directly to the user, despite explicit terms to the contrary in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service,” the complaint says. “The Terms of Use and Privacy Policies very specifically make it clear that anything you put into the bots is not confidential – they can use it to train AI systems, target users for advertisements, sell the data to other companies, and pretty much anything else.”

Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists

Exclusive: Following 404 Media’s investigation into Meta’s AI Studio chatbots that pose as therapists and provided license numbers and credentials, four senators urged Meta to limit “blatant deception” from its chatbots.

404 MediaSamantha Cole

In December 2024, two families sued Character.AI, claiming it “poses a clear and present danger to American youth causing serious harms to thousands of kids, including suicide, self-mutilation, sexual solicitation, isolation, depression, anxiety, and harm towards others.” One of the complaints against Character.AI specifically calls out “trained psychotherapist” chatbots as being damaging.

Earlier this week, a group of four senators sent a letter to Meta executives and its Oversight Board, writing that they were concerned by reports that Meta is “deceiving users who seek mental health support from its AI-generated chatbots,” citing 404 Media’s reporting. “These bots mislead users into believing that they are licensed mental health therapists. Our staff have independently replicated many of these journalists’ results,” they wrote. “We urge you, as executives at Instagram’s parent company, Meta, to immediately investigate and limit the blatant deception in the responses AI-bots created by Instagram’s AI studio are messaging directly to users.”